iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliSi^iiiipp  g^ 


FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  EOCKEFBLLBE 


BAPTIST  COUNCILS  IN  AMERICA. 


A   HISTORICAL  STUDY  OF   THEIR   ORIGIN  AND   THE 
PRINCIPLES  OF   THEIR   DEVELOPMENT. 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTY    OF   THE    GRADUATE    DIVINITY 

SCHOOL  IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE   DEGREE    OF 

DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY. 


DBPAKTMENT  OF 
CHUHCH     HISTORY. 


WILLIAM    HENRY   ALLISON,  B.  D.,    Ph.  D. 


.A43 


CHICAGO 
P»0B  of  (Bta.  iC.  liaflm  $:  (So. 

1906 


gf^Ci  OF  PR//V^ 


(III|f  Ittw^rstly  of  QII|tragn 

FOUNDED  BT  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


BAPTIST  COUNCILS  IN  AMERICA. 


A   HISTORICAL   STUDY   OF    THEIR    ORIGIN   AND   THE 
PRINCIPLES   OF    THEIR    DEVELOPMENT. 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTY    OF    THE    GRADUATE    DIVINITY 

SCHOOL  IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE   DEGREE    OF 

DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY. 


DEPARTMENT   OF 
CHURCH     HISTORY. 


BY     ,/ 

WILLIAM    HENRY    ALLISON,  B.  D. 


CHICAGO 
l^ttBB  nf  (Bta.  SC.  l?a?Utt  Sc  (Do. 

190fi 


CONTENTS. 


Introduction^  vjith    Bibliography 5 

Chapter  I. — Definition,  and  Line  of  Approach 9 

Definition.       The   Jerusalem    conference.       The    obligation   of 
fellowship. 

Chapter    II. — Early  Principles   of  Fellowship  amo7tg  Baptist 

Churches 13 

(  I )  In  England.  Contact  of  American  and  English  Baptists. 
Confessions  of  i6ii,  1644,  1656,  1677,  1678,  ("Orthodox 
Creed,")  1689. 

(2)  In  America.  Organization  of  the  Kittery  Church.  Lim- 
ited opportunities  for  inter-church  fellowship  before  the  Great 
Awakening.     The  Philadelphia  Association. 

Chapter  III. —  The  Entrance  of  the  Council  as  a  Recognized 

Institution  in  Baptist  Polity 27 

The  Middletown  council  of  17 12.  The  Cape  May  Court  House 
council  of  1712.  The  ordination  councils  of  the  First  Church, 
Boston,  of  1718  and  1738.  The  Springfield  council  of  1740. 
The  Boston  installation  council  of  1764.  The  Warwick,  R.  I., 
(Boston  2nd)  council  of  1743.  The  New  Light  Movement. 
Associations  as  councils.  Associations  and  the  council.  The 
Shaftsbury  association  "Answer"  of  1791.  Why  did  not  the 
association  absorb  the  council? 

Chapter  IV. —  The   Status  of  the    Council 42 

The  council  the  product  of  fellowship.  Not  essential  to  the 
individual  church.  Its  relation  to  the  local  church  advisory. 
The  broader  sphere  of  the  council  as  an  institution.  (  i  )  The 
relation  of  the  council  to  the  churches  at  large.  The  compe- 
tency of  the  council.  Protection  from  packed  councils.  Con- 
flict of  councils.  (2)  The  relation  of  the  council  to  the  church 
calling  it.  The  acceptance  of  the  advice  of  the  council.  The 
representation  of  the  church  in  the  council.  The  enlargement 
of  the  council.  (3)  The  relation  of  the  council  to  its  con- 
stituent churches.  Are  they  really  represented?  (4)  The 
ex  parte  conncW.     (5)   Opposition  to  the  council. 

3 


Chapter   \ .—  The  Fu7ictions  of  the  Council 5^ 

(i)  In  the  constitution  and  recognition  of  churches.  (2)  In 
dissolution  and  disfellowship.  (3)  In  ordination.  (4)  In  in- 
stallation and  dismission.  (5)  In  deposition  and  restoration. 
(6)  Councils  called  in  the  interests  of  peace.  (7)  Promotion 
of  local  or  general  denominational  activities  and  welfare. 

Chapter   VI. The    Further    Relation    of   Associations  and 

Cotincils 

Associations  continuing  to  act  as  councils.  The  problem  of 
the  relation  of  association  and  council.  The  Philadelphia  plans 
of  1837  and  1 84 1.     The  advisory  committees. 

Chapter   VII. —  The  Permanent   Council 9" 

Chapter   VIII. —  Concluding  Remarks no 

Appendix  A.      List  of  councils  to  1820. 
Appendix  B.     Councils  for  ordination  of  deacons. 


INTRODUCTION    WITH    BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


The  study,  of  which  the  following  pages  are  the  result,  was 
begun  with  the  purpose  of  discovering  the  value  of  the  council  as  a 
working  instrument  in  the  Baptist  denomination.  It  was  intended 
to  limit  it  to  the  examination  of  as  many  individual  councils  as 
possible,  classified  according  to  the  function  which  each  council  was 
called  to  perform,  and  then  to  the  ascertainment  of  the  actual  results 
of  each  upon  the  various   interests   directly   or   indirectly    involved. 

The  writer,  however,  soon  found  his  interest  gathering  about  the 
council  as  an  institution,  whose  origin  and  development  had  appa- 
rently never  been  subjected  to  any  thorough  historical  investigation. 
It  is  believed  that  the  original  purpose  of  the  study  has  been  even 
more  adequately  carried  out  than  if  there  had  been  no  change  in  its 
centre  of  interest;  for  the  efficiency  of  the  council  has  been  an 
essential  factor  in  its  development  as  an  institution.  It  is  hoped, 
moreover,  that  as  here  presented,  this  study  will  be  a  contribution 
to  a  better  understanding,  on  the  part  of  earnest  and  conscientious 
people  both  within  and  without  the  Baptist  churches,  of  the  true 
spirit  of  our  denominational  fellowship. 

The  writer  would  here  express  his  appreciation  of  their  friendly 
assistance,  in  the  work  of  research  or  in  the  preparation  of  the 
manuscript,  to  the  several  members  of  the  Department  of  Church 
History  in  the  University  of  Chicago  ;  to  Dr.  J.  Franklin  Jameson  ; 
to  Rev.  W.  C.  Bitting,  D.  D. ;  to  the  numerous  individuals  who 
have  contributed  through  correspondence  or  conversation  ;  to  per- 
sonal friends  who  have  extended  their  hospitality  during  researches 
in  Ithaca,  Hamilton,  New  York  City,  New  Haven  and  Providence ; 
also  to  the  library  staffs  in  the  institutions  mentioned  below. 

Use  has  been  made  of  the  following  libraries  and  historical 
collections  :  Boston,  Mass.,  Public  Library,  Congregational  Library, 
New  England  Historic-Genealogical  Society,  Massachusetts  His- 
torical  Society  ;    Cambridge,   Mass.,  Harvard  University  ;    Newton 

5 


Centre,  Mass.,  Newton  Theological  Institution,  Backus  Historical 
Society ;  Worcester,  Mass.,  American  Antiquarian  Society ;  Pro- 
vidence, R.  I.,  John  Carter  Brown  Library,  Brown  University, 
R.  I.  Historical  Society;  New  Haven,  Conn.,  Public  Library,  Yale 
University;  New  York  City,  Lenox  Library,  (also  Records  of  the 
Southern  New  York  Baptist  Association  and  Records  of  the 
Permanent  Council  of  New  York  City  and  Vicinity)  ;  Hamilton, 
N.  Y.,  The  Samuel  Colgate  Baptist  Historical  Collection  ;  Ithaca, 
N-  Y.,  Cornell  University ;  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  American  Baptist 
Historical  Society ;  Upland,  Pa.,  Crozer  Theological  Seminary ; 
Chicago,  111.,  University  of  Chicago,  Public  Library,  Newberry 
Library. 

A  wide  use  has  been  made  of  histories  of  towns  and  local  church- 
es, historical  sermons  and  addresses,  and  Minutes  of  Associations. 
Specific  references  will  be  found  in  the  foot-notes ;  in  the  case  of 
material  drawn  from  the  Associational  records,  unless  otherwise 
indicated,  the  information  vv^ill  be  found  in  the  Minutes  of  the 
appropriate  year. 

Although  much  of  the  data  referred  to  is  gleaned  from  The 
Watchman  and  its  predecessors,  practically  the  complete  file  from 
1819  having  been  examined,  the  other  denominational  papers  have 
been  examined  more  than  the  relatively  few  references  to  them 
might  indicate. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


Barclay,  Robert.  "The  Inner  Life  of  the  Religious  Societies  of 
the  Commonwealth."     London,  1867. 

Hanserd  Knollys  Society.  "Confessions  of  Faith  and  other  Public 
Documents,  Illustrative  of  the  History  of  the  Baptist  Churches 
of  England  in  the  17th  Century."     London,  1854. 

Crosby,  Thomas.  "History  of  the  English  Baptists."  4  vols. 
London,  1738- 1740. 

Ivimey,  Joseph.  "History  of  the  English  Baptists."  4  vols.  Lon- 
don,  1811-1830. 

Backus,  Isaac.  "A  History  of  New  England,  with  Reference  to 
the  Denomination  called  Baptists."  3  vols.  Boston,  1779- 
1796.     2  vols.    1 87 1. 

Benedict,  David.     "Fifty  Years  Among  the  Baptists."     N.  Y.,  i860. 

Burrage,  H.  S.  "History  of  the  Baptists  in  New  England."  Phil- 
adelphia, 1894. 

Vedder,  H.  C.  "History  of  the  Baptists  in  the  Middle  States." 
Philadelphia,  1898. 

Newman,  A.  H.  "A  History  of  the  Baptist  Churches  in  the  United 
States."     N.  Y.  1894. 

Haynes,  D.  C.  "The  Baptist  Denomination;  Its  History,  Doc- 
trines and  Ordinances:   Its  Polity,  etc."     N.  Y.  1857. 

Millet,  Joshua.  "A  History  of  the  Baptists  in  Maine."  Portland, 
i845. 

Burrage,  H.  S.  "History  of  the  Baptists  in  Maine."  Portland, 
1904. 

Wright,  Stephen.     "Shaftsbury   Baptist   Association   from    1751  to 

1853-" 
Halsey,    Lewis.       "History   of    the    Seneca     Baptist    Association." 

Troy,  N.  Y.,  1853. 
Cook,  R.  B.     "The  Early   and   Later   Delaware    Baptists."     Phil., 

1880. 
Edwards,  Morgan.     "Materials  toward  a  History  of  the  Baptists  in 

Jersey."     Phil.  1792. 

The  same  for  "Pennsylvania."     Phil.,  1770. 

The  same  for  "Delaware  State."     Phil.,  1885. 
Semple,  Robert  B.     "A   History  of  the    Rise  and  Progress  of  the 

Baptists  in  Virginia."     Virginia,  18 10,   1894. 

7 


Thomas,  David.     "The  Virginian  Baptist."     Baltimore,  1774. 

Burkitt,  Lemuel,  and  Reed,  Jesse.  "A  Concise  History  of  the 
Kehukee  Baptist  Association."     Halifax,  N.  C,  1803. 

Wood,  Furman.  "A  History  of  the  Charleston  Association." 
Charleston,  S.  C,  181 1. 

Mercer,  Jesse.  "A  History  of  the  Georgia  Baptist  Association," 
Washington,  Ga.,  1838. 

Holcombe,  Hosea.  "A  History  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the 
Baptists  in  Alabama."      Phil.,  1840. 

Walker,  Edwin  S.  "History  of  the  Springfield  (111.)  Baptist  As- 
sociation."    Springfield,  111.,  1881. 

Cotton,  John.     "Book  of  the  Keyes,"  quoted  in 

Mather,  Increase.  "The  First  Principles  of  New  England."  Cam- 
bridge, 1675. 

Dexter,  H.  M.     "The  Congregationalism  of  the  Last  Three  Hun- 
dred Years,  as  seen  in  its  Literature."     N.  Y.  1890. 
Especially  Lecture  X.     "Ecclesiastical  Councils." 
"A  Glance  at  the  Ecclesiastical  Councils  of  New  England." 
Boston,  1867.      (Reprint  from   "New    Englander"   of    April, 
1867.) 

Quint,  A.  H.  "The  Authority  of  Councils."  Congregational 
Quarterly,  Vol.  2.  (July,  i860.) 

Hazen,  H.  A.  "The  Future  of  Ecclesiastical  Councils."  (Paper 
read  before  the  National  Council  of  Congregational  Churches, 
Portland,  Oregon,  1898.) 

Edwards,  Morgan.  (  ?)  "The  Customs  of  Primitive  Churches." 
(1768.?) 

Stearns,  J.  G.     "The  Primitive  Church."     Utica,  N.  Y.,  1833. 

Walker,  Warham.  "Church  Discipline."  Boston  and  Utica, 
N.  Y.,  1844. 

Crowell,  William.  "The  Church  Member's  Manual  of  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Principles,  Doctrines  and  Discipline."     Boston,  1847. 

Wayland,  Francis.  "Notes  on  the  Principles  and  Practices  of 
Baptist  Churches."     N.  Y.  1857. 

Anderson,  Galusha.     "Notes  on  Church  Polity."     Boston,  1872. 

Hiscox,  Edward  T.  "The  New  Directory  for  Baptist  Churches." 
Phil.,  1S94. 

"Star  Book  on  Baptist  Councils."     N.  Y,  iSSi. 
"Star  Book  for  Ministers."      N.  Y.  1878. 

8 


CHAPTER  I. 

DEFINITION  AND  LINE  OF  APPROACH. 

The  term  ''council"  has  sometimes  been  loosely  used  of  confer- 
ences more  or  less  formal  in  nature,  in  which  Christians,  either  as 
individuals  or  as  representatives  of  churches  or  other  organizations, 
have  met  for  consultation  and  perhaps  the  formulation  of  some  policy 
for  Christian  activity.  In  Baptist  polity,  however,  the  term  has 
come  to  have  a  technical  sense,  viz.,  an  organized  body,  convened  at 
the  call  of  some  local  church  and  composed  of  representatives  of 
the  churches  to  ivhich  the  call  is  issued,  for  the  purpose  of  adz'ising 
the  convening  church  in  regard  to  such  matters  as  are  stated  in  the 
call.  Such  a  definition  is  not  to  be  applied  too  rigidly,  for  we  must 
recognize  that  there  may  be  certain  modifications  of  the  character- 
istics mentioned  above,  and  yet  the  body  may  very  properly  be 
called  a  council.  Sometimes,  as  in  the  constitution  of  a  new  church, 
the  call  for  a  council  is  issued  by  a  body  of  Christians  not  yet  pos- 
sessing an  ecclesiastical  organization ;  again,  a  council  may  contain 
others  than  representatives  specially  appointed  by  the  churches. 
Aloreover,  this  definition  which  we  have  given  applies  rather  to  the 
somewhat  stereotyped  form  of  the  present-day  council  than  to  the 
more  plastic  conditions  of  its  early  development.  But  the  convening 
of  a  council,  strictly  so  called,  involves  in  every  case,  directly  or 
indirectly,  the  relation  of  a  local  church  to  the  other  churches  of  the 
same  faith  and  order.  If  there  was  only  one  Baptist  Church,  or  if 
each  Baptist  church  stood  in  absolute  isolation  from  every  other 
similar  body,  there  could  be  no  such  institution  as  a  Baptist  council. 
In  other  words,  the  existence  of  the  council  as  a  universally  recog- 
nized instrument  in  Baptist  polity  demands  that  it  be  adjusted  to  that 
much  emphasized  Baptist  principle, — the  independence  of  the  local 
church.  It  is  really  from  this  point  of  view  that  we  find  special 
interest  in  our  subject,  as  it  is  from  its  relation  to  the  fundamental 
constitution  of  Baptist  churches  that  the  council  becomes  of  prime 
importance.  It  would  be  possible  to  study  it  with  an  antiquarian's 
interest,  attracted  especially  by  such  aspects  of  quaintness  as  are 
more  or  less  common  to  all  the  ecclesiastical  functions  of  the  colonial 
period.  Another  possibility  would  be  the  treatment  of  the  council 
as  an  approach  to  the  history  of  the  local  church,  just  as  a  study 
of  the  foreign  relations  of  a  country  through  its  conventions  and 


lO  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN     AMERICA 

treaties  will  reveal  much  that  is  of  moment  in  the  domestic  life  of 
the  people.  If  we  possessed  the  questions  which  members  of  coun- 
cils have  put  to  candidates  for  ordination  during  the  last  two  hun- 
dred years,  we  would  have  most  valuable  data  for  tracing  the  line  of 
emphasis  in  theological  thought  among  Baptists  during  that  period. 
Here,  however,  we  lack  sufficient  definite  information  from  the 
sources,  for  the  scanty  nature  of  the  official  reports  of  councils, 
which  rarely  more  than  chronicle  their  organization  and  decisions, 
places  a  narrow  limit  upon  the  positive  knowledge  to  be  gained 
through  such  a  process.  Our  purpose,  however,  is  rather  to  trace 
the  rise  and  development  of  the  council  as  an  institution  and  by  the 
historical  method  to  ascertain  its  constitutional  basis.  As  the  inde- 
pendency of  the  local  church  has  been  received  as  an  axiom  of  Bap- 
tist polity,  can  there  be,  consistent  with  this,  any  such  institution  as 
the  council?  How  has  it  come  about  that  it  holds  the  position  it 
does  to-day? 

( 1 )  It  may  not  be  superfluous  to  state  that  the  Baptist  council 
is  in  no  way  connected  with  that  historic  line  beginning  with  Nicaea 
and  continuing  at  intervals,  sometimes  of  centuries,  until  the  Vatican 
in  1870.  Those  councils  were  authoritative  bodies  with  legislative 
powers, — sometimes  judicial, — which  were  supposed  to  represent 
the  church  universal ;  to  their  decrees,  every  national  and  local 
church  must  yield  full  obedience.  The  whole  status  of  the  Baptist 
council,  as  we  shall  see,  is  fundamentally  different  in  both  its  con- 
stitution and  functions. 

(2)  The  justification  of  the  council  in  Baptist  polity  is  often 
•jought  in  the  axiom  of  ecclesiastical  practice, — that  a  New  Testa- 
ment precedent  is  a  sufficient  warrant  for  any  institution.  In  Acts 
15,  we  have  the  record  of  a  council  held  in  apostolic  days;  this  is 
the  model  upon  which  Baptist  councils  have  been  formed,  we  are 
told,  and  all  their  actions  should  conform  to  this  New  Testament 
precedent.  It  should  be  evident  to  every  one  who  reads  the  account 
of  the  conference  at  Jerusalem  that  it  established  no  precedent  for 
conciliar  legislation  authoritative  over  the  churches,  such  as  cul- 
minated through  the  series  of  councils  in  the  decrees  of  Trent  and 
the  Vatican.  A  question  involving  most  fundamental  principles 
both  in  doctrine  and  practice  had  arisen  in  the  church  at  Antioch. 
It  seemed  advisable  for  the  church  there  to  get  as  much  light  on 
the  subject  as  possible,  so  they  selected  Paul  and  Barnabas,  with 
certain  others,  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem,  where  they  could  consult  with 
the  apostles  and  the  elders  about  the  question.  Whether  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians  refers  to  this  conference  or  not,  it  is  certainly  true 
that  Paul  did  not  go  up  to  Jerusalem  to  receive  authoritative  instruc- 
tions on  a  question  which  involved  the  very  life  of  the  Gospel  which 


DEFINITION     AND      LINE     OF     APPROACH  11 

had  been  directly  revealed  to  him/  While  the  matter  was  probably 
discussed  by  the  leaders  in  private,-  it  was  finally  brought  before 
the  whole  church  at  Jerusalem.  Their  decision,  though  dignified 
by  the  title  "decrees,"  was  a  decidedly  neutral  utterance  and  seems 
to  have  had  little  weight  in  the  solution  of  the  crucial  question  at 
issue. ^ 

From  both  the  occasion  of  this  conference  and  the  nature  and 
results  of  its  decision,  if  not  the  form,  its  advisory  character  is  evi- 
dent. May  it  not,  then,  be  placed  under  Dr.  Dexter's  classification 
of  "Councils  called  to  give  light"?*  In  one  essential  particular  it 
fails  to  be  a  council.  It  bears  no  trace  of  separate  organization  apart 
from  the  church  itself,  being  simply  a  meeting-  of  the  church  of  Jeru- 
salem,— in  which,  indeed,  the  messengers  from  Antioch  were  allowed 
to  participate.  This  fact, — its  lack  of  separate  organization, — is  a 
sufficient  reason  for  not  considering  the  meeting  in  Jerusalem  the 
prototype  of  the  modern  council.  Moreover,  there  is  to  be  found 
neither  here  nor  in  any  other  part  of  the  New  Testament  the  prece- 
dent for  the  submission  to  a  council  of  the  questions  of  the  ordina- 
tion of  a  candidate  to  the  ministry  or  of  the  recognition  of  new 
churches,  the  most  frequent  occasions  for  the  convening  of  councils 
to-dav. 

(3)  Where,  then,  are  we  to  look  for  the  sources  from  which 
has  sprung  the  Baptist  council?  It  is  generally  conceded  by  Ameri- 
can Baptists  that  the  streams  of  local  church  polity  of  apostolic 
days  gradually  merged  into  the  great  hierarchical  system  dominated 
by  the  Bishops  of  Rome ;  but  that  from  this  highly  developed  and 
centralized  absolutism  they  emerge  again  at  the  Protestant  Reforma- 
tion in  the  streams  of  Independency.  To  be  sure,  there  were  some 
obscure  sects  before  the  Reformation  which  kept  alive  the  concep- 
tion of  the  church  as  the  local  body  of  believers,  who  at  least  op- 
posed the  prevailing  idea  of  catholicity;  but  persecution  generally 
prevented  the  formation  of  any  such  local  church  organization  as 
must  precede  the  existence  of  formal  inter-church  relations.  The 
question  of  the  fellowship  of  the  local  churches  could  arise  only  after 
these  had  attained  self-consciousness  and  a  sense  of  permanence. 
For  our  purpose,  therefore,  it  will  be  unnecessary  to  go  back  of  the 

^Gal.  I  :ii,  12. 

^Acts  15:6.    Cf.  Gal.  2:2. 

^The  decrees,  in  view  of  Paul's  acceptance  of  them,  are  merely  the  ad- 
vice that  Gentile  Christians  abstain  from  those  things  which  would  especially 
offend  their  Jewish  brethren.  If,  however,  one  accepts  the  hypothesis  that 
the  decrees  are  a  later  product  of  the  Jerusalem  church,  though  they  cannot 
be  considered  extremely  Judaistic,  they  remain  no  longer  neutral.  Cf. 
McGiffert,  "The  Apostolic  Age,"  p.  211  sq. 

^"Congregationalism"  p.  599. 


12  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN     AMERICA 

emergence  of  Independency  in  the  Reformation.  It  is  immaterial, 
moreover,  whether  we  look  to  Robert  Browne  as  the  first  modern 
exponent  of  the  independency  of  the  local  church  or  whether  we  look 
earlier  among  the  Anabaptists.  By  the  time  the  Baptists  in  America 
had  held  anything  which  could  be  termed  a  council.  Independency 
had  been  on  trial  for  several  decades  in  the  mother-country,  and  for 
its  Scripturalness  and  practicality,  such  men  as  John  Robinson  and 
Oliver  Cromwell  and  John  Milton  stood  as  sponsors.  As  opposed 
to  the  Episcopalian  and  Presbyterian  theories  of  the  status  of  the 
local  church  and  its  governmental  functions,  the  development  of  In- 
dependency is  closely  united  to  the  great  democratic  movement 
which  overthrew  the  Stuart  despotism  and  re-established  the  State 
on  the  basis  of  a  constitutional  monarchy  subject  to  Parliament,  safe- 
guarding the  liberties  of  the  people  by  the  Act  of  Toleration  and  the 
Bill  of  Rights.  It  would  carry  us  too  far  afield  to  attempt  even  an 
outline  sketch  of  that  rapid  rise  of  the  people  into  power  and  respon- 
sibility which  will  ever  make  the  seventeenth  century  a  prominent 
stage  in  the  progress  of  the  race  toward  self-control  and  social 
efficiency.  It  must  suffice  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  insti- 
tution, the  somewhat  obscure  rise  and  development  of  which  we  are 
to  study,  is  vitally  connected  with  the  process  of  political  evolution 
in  this  period  to  which  we  have  just  referred.  It  would  be  absurd 
to  claim  that  Baptist  councils  have  influenced  the  development  of 
popular  government ;  but  it  may  be  confidently  asserted  that  such  an 
institution  could  only  have  come  into  being  in  connection  with 
democratic  ideas  such  as  were  in  the  seventeenth  century  moulding 
the  political,  social  and  ecclesiastical  institutions  of  England  and 
America. 

The  re-discovery  of  the  local  Christian  church  and  its  inde- 
pendence was  not  merely  a  triumph  for  individualism,  nor  did  it 
lead  in  ecclesiastical  polity  to  isolation.  The  fundamental  principle 
in  the  constitution  of  the  local  church  was  the  fellowship  in  Christ 
which  drew  Christians  together  to  form  the  body  of  Christ.  Inher- 
ent in  this  very  principle  was  the  obligation  of  Christian  churches 
to  manifest  a  similar  fellowship  among  themselves.  It  is  here,  then, 
where  the  developing  sense  of  fellowship  is  awakening  that  of  obli- 
gation among  the  churches,  that  we  may  look  for  the  sources  of 
an  institution  which  rests  upon  the  obligations  of  fellowship.  It  is 
here  that  we  find  our  starting-point  and  the  line  of  approach  to  our 
subject. 


CHAPTER  II. 

EARLY  PRIXCIPLES  OF  FELLOWSHIP  AMONG  BAPTIST  CHURCHES. 

I.     In  England. 
AInch  has  been  written  on  the  development  of  the  polity  of  the 
Independents  of   England.     How   directly   the   Baptists   were  con- 
sciously influenced  bv  their  example  is  problematical;  most  likely 
each  profited  somewhat  bv  the  experiences  of  the  other,  each  work- 
in^  out  the  same  fundamental  principles  with  not  far  different  re- 
sutts      It  is  also  uncertain  how  largely  the  ideas  of  the   English 
Baptists   were   transferred   to   America.      Is   it   possibly  irrelevant, 
then    for  us  to  consider  even  brieflv  the  early  principles  of  fellcw- 
ship  among  the  Baptist  churches  of  England?    Our  purpose  is  not 
to   show  that  the  council  as  an  institution  was  transferred  bodily 
from  England,  for  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  was  the  case.     We 
wish  to  show  merelv  that  the  Baptist  churches  of  England  of  the 
seventeenth   centurv'  plainlv   recognized   alongside  the   principle   of 
the  independence  of  the   local   church    in   such  matters   as   related 
solely  to  its  own  affairs  the  principle  of  interdependence  as  a  nec- 
essary check  upon  anv  encroachment  of  the  local  church  upon  the 
rights  of  others.     Whether  we   are   right  or  not  in  asserting  the 
recognition  of  this  second  principle  must  be  judged  by  the  evidence 
which  we  shall  immediatelv  adduce :  meanwhile  we  find  the  relevancy 
of  what  at  first  mav  seem  a  digression  in  this  fact,— that  whatever 
ideas  of  church  politv  were  generally  accepted  among  English  Bap- 
tises would  not  be  unknown  among  their  American  brethren.     In 
the  first  place,  not  a  few  of  the  early  Baptists  in  America  were  ad- 
herents of  that  faith  in  England,  and  manv  of  them  members  of 
Baptist  churches  there.     Tlie  personal  channels  of  communication 
between  the  two  countries  became  of  course  more  numerous  m  the 
eighteenth  centurv ;  but  in  the  previous  fifty  years,  the  few  scattered 
Baptists  could  not  have  been  whollv  ignorant  of  the  policy  of  fellow- 
ship among  the  English  churches.     John  Clarke,  the  first  pastor  of 
the  Newport,  R.  I., 'church,  was  a  Baptist  most  likely  before  leaving 
for  America ;  his  pastorate  of  32  years  he  interrupted  with  a  sojourn 
of  12  years  in  England,  ( 1652-1664),  in  the  interests  of  the  colony.^ 
During  this  time,  he  must  have  become  thoroughly  acquainted  with 

'  Xewmaii.  "Hist,  of  the  Bap.  Churches,''  pp.  108,  iii. 

13 


14  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

the  inter-relations  of  the  Baptist  churches  there.  Of  more  direct 
value  to  show  that  the  early  Baptists  were  not  wholly  ignorant  of 
the  faith  and  practices  of  their  English  brethren  is  the  fact  that  at 
the  organization  of  the  church  at  Kittery,  Maine,  in  September, 
1682,  when  delegates  from  the  Boston  church  were  present,  the 
Confession  of  Faith  which  the  church  adopted  was  that  "put  forth 
by  the  elders  and  brethren  of  the  churches  in  London  and  the 
country  in  England  dated  in  year  1682."-  In  this  case,  at  least, 
we  find  that  only  a  few  months  after  the  adoption  of  a  confessional 
statement  by  the  Baptists  in  the  vicinity  of  London,  a  group  of 
American  Baptists  make  use  of  it  as  their  declaration  of  faith,  with 
the  approval  of  the  Boston  delegates. 

This  particvilar  creed  of  1682  the  writer  has  not  found,  but  if  it 
dealt  with  inter-church  relations,  it  probably  was  not  far  different 
upon  this  point  from  the  other  Confessions  of  about  the  same  date. 
We  will  now  turn  to  some  of  the  Declarations  of  Faith  promulgated 
by  the  English  Baptists  during  the  seventeenth  century  to  obtain 
what  light  we  can  on  this  phase  of  our  subject. 

It  is  only  natural  that  what  is  perhaps  the  earliest  statement  of 
English  Baptists,  made  in  161 1,  before  they  were  in  any  position  to 
proceed  far  in  the  positive  work  of  the  reconstruction  of  a  church 
polity  on  the  apostolic  model,  should  go  no  farther  than  to  assert  the 
equality  of  the  local  churches.  I  refer  to  "A  Declaration  of  Faith 
of  English  People,  remaining  at  Amsterdam  in  Holland;  Printed 
161 1,"  two  of  whose  articles,  (XIII.  and  XIV.),  show  that  these 
"English  People"  were  Baptists. 

"Wee  Believe  and  Confess, — 

"XII.     That   as   one   congregation   hath    Christ,    so 
hath  all.     And  that  the  word  of  God  cometh  not  from 
any  one,  neither  to  any  one  congregation  in  particular, 
but  unto  every  particular  church,  as  it  doth  unto  all  the 
world ;  And  therefore  no  church  ought  to  challenge  any 
prerogative  over  any  other."^ 
This  statement  strikes  at  the  primacy  of  any  particular  church 
such  as  had  been  claimed  and  exercised  by  Rome.     It  denies  the 
right  of  any  church  to  claim  a  "prerogative"  over  another,  but  does 
not  go  so  far  as  to^  assert  absolute  independence  on  the  part  of  each 
local  congregation.     It  leaves  wide  room  for  the  obligation  of  local 
churches  to  each  other ;  indeed,  this  principle  is  directly  involved  in 
the  first  sentence.     Whatever  rights  the  individual  church  mav  claim 


"  Burrage,  "Hist,  of  Bapts.  in  N.  E.,"  p.  55. 

'Crosby,  "Hist,  of  the  Eng.  Baptists,"  Vol.  H.,  App.   I.     Also  in  "Con- 
fessions of  Faith,"  Publications  of  the  Hanserd  Knollys  Society. 


EARLY    PRINCIPLES    OF     FELLOWSHIP  I5 

from  its  relation  to  Christ  as  its  Head,  it  must  also  concede  to  every 
other  church.  This  Article  is  in  fact  an  application  to  church  polity 
of  the  spirit  of  the  Golden  Rule ;  whatever  oversight  a  church  may 
exercise  over  others,  it  must  be  willing-  to  receive  in  turn  from  them. 
There  is  nothing  in  this  statement  of  an  independence  based  upon  a 
local  church's  possession  of  Christ  to  forbid  a  confederation  of 
churches,  if  only  the  equality  of  each  particular  church  is  preserved. 
This  "Declaration"  of  1611,  however,  does  not  proceed  so  far  in  con- 
structive polity,  for  these  early  Baptists  were  not  yet  confronted 
by  anv  serious  problems  of  inter-church  relations. 

In  1644,  seven  churches  in  London  united  in  issuing  "The  Con- 
fession of  Faith  of  those  Churches  which  are  commonly  (though 
falsely)  called  Anabaptists;  *  *  *  "  Among  its  articles  is  to 
be  found  the  following: — 

"XLVII.     And    although   the    particular   Congrega- 
tions be  distinct  and  severall  Bodies,  every  one  as  a  com- 
pact and  knit  Citie  in  itselfe ;  yet  are  they  all  to  walk  by 
one  and  the  same  Rule,  and  by  all  meanes  convenient  to 
have  the  counsell  and  help  one  of  another  in  all  needfull 
affairs  of  the  Church,  as  members  of  one  body  in  the 
common  faith  under  Christ  their  onely  head."* 
Here  we  have  a  positive  advance  beyond  the  Amsterdam  Declara- 
tion of  161 1,  which  was  capable  of  broad  interpretation  because  it 
was  rather  neutral  in  tone.     Meanwhile,  Baptists  had  not  only  in- 
creased in  number,  but  they  had  begun  to  organize  into  churches. 
It  was  probably  not  till  1633  that  the  first  Baptist  church  in  London 
was  formed  by  a  group  of  anti-pedobaptists  who  withdrew  from  the 
Separate  churches  to  which  they  had  previously  belonged.     Eleven 
Acars  later,  there  appear  to  be  at  least  six  other  Baptist  churches 
within  the  limits  of  London,  a  fact  which  necessarily  raised  the  ques- 
tion of  fraternal  relations.     These  churches  did  not  look  upon  the 
matter  as  one  of  indifference,  for  this  Article  reveals  the  distinct 
recognition  of  these  primitive  English  Baptists  of  the  mutual  obli- 
gations of  churches  to  one  another.     Thus  early  in  the  development 


*Crosby,  "Hist,  of  the  Eng.  Bapts.."  Vol.  I.,  App.  II.,  gives  what  is 
apparently"  a  1646  edition  of  this  same  Confession  under  the  title,  "A  Con- 
fession of  Faith  of  seven  Congregations  of  Christians  in  London,  which  are 
commonly,  but  unjustly  called  Anabaptists;  .  .  .  Printed  at  London, 
Anno  1646."  Art  XLVII.  is  as  given  in  the  text  above  save  for  a  few 
unimportant  verbal  changes.  So  also  Art.  XLVI.  of  a  1652  edition  under  the 
title,  "A  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  several  Congregations  or  Churches  of 
Christ  in  London  which  are  commonly  (though  unjustly)  called  Anabaptists, 
etc."  The  1644  edition  is  prefaced  by  an  address  "To  All  Christian  Readers," 
and  is  "subscribed  in  the  names  of  seven  Churches  in  London."  This  is 
in  the  Colgate  Historical  Collection. 


l6  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

of  their  ecclesiastical  organization  they  show  by  this  united  state- 
ment of  their  doctrines  that  they  do  not  believe  in  isolation,  and  that 
other  interests  and  principles  of  their  common  church  life  will  hold 
in  check  any  tendency  in  Independency  to  become  predominatingly 
centrifugal  and  subversive  of  the  true  Christian  idea  of  unity.  There 
is  here,  however,  no  suggestion  of  an}-  definite  method  by  which  the 
churches  may  "have  the  counsell  and  help  of  one  another."  That 
they  are  "all  to  walk  by  one  and  the  same  Rule,"  does  not  mean  that 
all  shall  conform  to  one  mode  of  procedure,  but  that  they  shall  be 
guided  by  the  Scriptures.  These  Baptists  do  not  look  upon  a  New 
Testament  precedent  as  a  sine  qua  non  of  inter-church  counsel, 
which  may  be  had  "by  all  meanes  convenient."  The  way  is  clearly 
left  open  for  the  development  of  any  organization  for  effective  fel- 
lowship, such  as  councils,  associations,  and  missionary  societies, 
though  these  particular  institutions  were  probably  not  in  the  minds 
of  those  who  issued  this  Confession  of  1644. 

The  conception  that  the  mutual  relations  of  independent  churches 
rest  not  upon  the  permissibility  but  upon  the  obligation  of  fellow- 
ship is  still  more  explicitly  stated  in  "A  Confession  of  Faith  of 
several  congregations  of  Christ  in  the  county  of  Somerset,  and  some 
churches  in  the  counties  near  adjacent.  Printed  at  London,  Anno 
1656." 

"XXVIII.     That  it  is  the  duty  of  the  members  of 
Christ  in  the  order  of  the  gospel,  though  in  several  con- 
gregations and  assemblies    (being  one  in  the  head)    if 
occasion   be,   to  communicate   each   to   other,    in   things 
spiritual,  and  things  temporal."" 
Already,  however,  the  churches  had  been  increasing  in  number 
and  it  had  been  found  by  experience  that  of  churches  it  is  true  no 
less  than  of  individuals,  that  "no  one  liveth  to  himself."    There  are 
some  matters  which  in  themselves  pertain  to  the  individual  church, 
but  which  react,   directly  or  indirectly,   upon  more  than  the  local 
bod}'  immediately  involved.     The  Baptist  churches  were  becomino- 
conscious,   moreover,   of  their  relations   to   the   larger  purpose   for 
which   they   existed   and   recognized   that   if  they   were   to   become 
effective  in  the  social  order  of  their  age,  they  must  themselves  find 
some  method  for  the  conservation  of  their  mutual  interests.     A  nec- 
essary step  was  the  adoption  of  some  concerted  plan  for  the  settle- 
ment of  such  differences  as  were  already  arising  among  the  churches. 
The  need  of  this  was  felt  as  early  as  1677,  when  the  chief  amplifica- 
tion of  the  theorv  of  inter-church  relations  was  made  in  that  line  of 


^'Crosby,  "English  Baptists,"  Vol.  I.,  App.  III.     Also  in  "Confessions  of 
Faith."  H.  K.  Society. 


EARLY     PRINCIPLES     OF     FELLOWSHIP  I7 

Confessions  which  starts  in  1643-4  and  leads  through  various  re- 
censions to  the  Philadelphia  Confession  of  1742. 

"Chap.  XXVI.     Of  the  Church.« 

"7.  To  each  of  these  (local)  churches  *  *  * 
he  hath  given  all  that  power  and  authority,  which  is  in 
any  way  needful  for  their  carrying  on  that  order  in  wor- 
ship and  discipline,  which  he  hath  instituted  for  them 
to  observe,  with  commands  and  rules,  for  the  due  and 
right  exerting  and  executing  of  that  power. 

"15.  In  cases  of  difficulties  or  differences,  either  in 
point  of  Doctrine,  or  Administration;  wherein  either  the 
Churches  in  general  are  concerned,  or  any  one  Church  in 
their  peace,  union,  and  edification,  or  any  member  or 
members,  of  any  Church  are  injured,  in  or  by  any  pro- 
ceedings in  censures  not  agreeable  to  truth  and  order : 
it  is  according  to  the  mind  of  Christ,  that  many  Churches 
holding  communion  together,  do  by  their  messengers 
meet  to  consider  and  give  their  advice  in,  or  about  that 
matter  in  difTerence,  to  be  reported  to  all  the  Churches 
concerned ;  howbeit  these  messengers  assembled,  are  not 
entrusted  with  any  Church-power  properly  so  called ;  or 
with  any  jurisdiction  over  the  Churches  themselves,  to 
exercise  any  censures  either  over  any  Churches,  or  Per- 
sons :  or  to  impose  their  determination  on  the  Churches, 
or  Officers," 

We  note  here  a  distinct  advance  over  the  earlier  statements, 
which  expressed  merely  the  general  principles  of  fellowship.  The 
first  paragraph  quoted  reaffirms  the  immediate  relation  of  the  indi- 
vidual church  to  Christ,  from  whom  it  receives  its  power  and  author- 
ity. For  these  it  is  not  dependent  upon  other  churches  or  upon  the 
Church  universal.  There  is,  however,  the  recognition  of  the  follow- 
ing facts  and  principles  : — 

(i)     There  are  matters  of  mutual  concern  among  the  churches. 

(2)  The  churches  are  under  the  obligation  of  mutual  oversight. 

(3)  Individual  churches  may  err  in  their  treatment  of  members. 

(4)  Churches  may  meet  by  their  messengers  to  give  advice  in 
matters  of  difference.  This  is  virtually  the  recognition  of  the  council 
as  an  institution,  the  language  suggesting  that  it  is  already  the  cus- 
tom for  such  assemblies  for  counsel  to  be  held. 

(5)  The  council  may  review  the  censures  of  members  of  indi- 
vidual churches. 

""Confession  of  Faith  put  forth  by  the  Elders  and  Brethren  of  many 
Congregations  of  Christians  (baptized  upon  Profession  of  their  Faith)  in 
London  and  the  Country."    1677.     In  the  Colgate  Historical  Collection. 


l8  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

(6)  Yet  its  decisions  are  not  to  be  imposed  upon  the  church 
or  churches,  but  reported  to  them  by  way  of  advice. 

(7)  The  council  has  no  "Church-power";  it  is  not  the  Church 
nor  does  it  have  authority  over  the  churches  or  over  their  officers. 

The  rights  of  independency  were  not  always  so  carefully  guarded 
as  in  this" line  of  Confessions  at  which  we  have  been  looking.  In 
the  so-called  "Orthodox  Creed,"  for  example,  dated  1678,  we  find 
set  forth  virtually  the  theory  of  a  presbytery.'^ 

"XXXIX.     Article.     Of    general    Councils,  or  As- 
semblies. 

"General  councils  or  assemblies,  consisting  of  Bish- 
ops, Elders,  and  Brethren  of  the  several  churches   of 
Christ,  and  being  legally  convened,  and  met  together 
out  of  all  the  churches,  and  the  churches  appearing  there 
by  their  representatives,  make  but  one  church,  and  have 
lawful  right,  and  suffrage  in  this  general  meeting,  or  as- 
sembly, to  act  in  the  name  of  Christ;  it  being  of  divine 
authority,  and  is  the  best  means  under  heaven  to  preserve 
unity,  to  prevent  heresy,  and  superintendency  among,  or 
in  any  congregation  whatsoever  within  its  own  limits, 
or  jurisdiction.     And  to  such  a  meeting  or  assembly, 
appeals  ought  to  be  made,  in  case  any  injustice  be  done, 
or  heresy,  and  schism  countenanced,   in  any  particular 
congregation  of  Christ,  and  the  decisive  voice  in  such 
general  assembUes  is  the  major  part,  and  such  general 
assemblies  have  lawful  power  to  hear,  and  determine,  as 
also  to  excommunicate." 
This  is  a  very  strong  statement  of  conciliar  authority  in  Jiiarked 
contrast  to  the  Confession  of  1677.     That  denied  to  any  assembly 
of  messengers  of  the  churches  any  "Church-power,"  while  this  rec- 
ognizes the  messengers  as   representatives  of  the  churches  which 
are  themselves  considered  as  sitting  together  and  forming  one  church 
of  higher  authority  than  the  local  church.    To  this  appeals  are  to  be 
made ;  its  responsibility  for  the  preservation  of  unity,  the  prevention 
of  heresy  and  the  exercise  of  superintendency  would  apparently  be 
its  sufficient  Avarrant  to  take  the  initiative.     Its  decisions  would  be 
authoritative,  and  its  jurisdiction  extended  even  to  the  extreme  of 
excommunication.     The  explanation  of  the  presbyterian  character 
of  this  "Orthodox  Confession,"  which  came  from  the  Genera!  Bap- 


'"An  Orthodox  Creed,  or  A  Protestant  Confession  of  Faith,  etc.,  etc.. 
etc.,  being  an  Essay  to  unite  and  confirm  all  true  Protestants  in  the  Funda- 
mental Articles  of  the  Christian  Religion,  against  the  Errors  and  Heresies 
of  Rome."    Hanserd  Knollys  Society's  Collection  of  Confessions  of  Faith. 


EARLY     PRINCIPLES     OF     FELLOWSHIP  I9 

tists,  is  to  be  found  in  the  irenic  purpose  set  forth  in  the  sub-title 
of  the  Confession  itself.'^  To  quote  the  historian  of  the  General 
Baptists,  "The  evident  design  of  the  compilers  of  these  articles  ap- 
pears to  have  been  to  approximate  as  closely  to  the  Calvinistic  system 
as  they  could,  without  giving  up  their  distinguishing  tenets."^  The 
significance  of  this  Confession  for  our  subject  is  two-fold;  (i)  it 
is  probably  the  strongest  statement  by  English  Baptists  of  the  mutual 
responsibilities  of  independent  churches;  (2)  it  endangers  inde- 
pendency at  certain  points  where  American  Baptists  more  care- 
fully safeguarded  it. 

The  "Orthodox  Confession,"  however,  is  much  less  a  guide  to 
the  actual  theory  of  inter-church  relations  among  the  English  Bap- 
tists than  is  the  Confession  of  1689,  which  comes  in  that  long  line 
already  referred  to  as  leading  on  this  side  of  the  ocean  to  the  Phila- 
delphia Confession.  In  the  mother-country,  this  Confession  of  1689 
was  considered  representative.  It  was  issued  by  a  general  assembly 
of  delegates  from  more  than  a  hundred  congregations,  "assembled 
together  to  consult  of  proper  ways  and  means  to  advance  the  glory 
of  God,  and  the  well-being  of  the  churches."  The  Assembly  dis- 
claimed "all  manner  of  superiority,  or  superintendency  over  the 
churches,"  and  all  "authority  or  power  to  impose  anything  upon 
the  faith  or  practice  of  any  of  the  churches  of  Christ."  Such  being 
its  attitude  toward  the  question  of  inter-church  relations,  it  found 
no  need  of  making  any  changes  on  that  subject  in  the  statement  of 
the  Confession  of  1677,  which  it  inserted  without  any  alteration.^ 

To  turn  briefly  from  the  theory  of  their  mutual  relations,  as  at- 
tested in  their  Confessions,  to  the  practice  of  the  English  Baptist 
churches,  we  find  here  also  clear  indications  that  they  plainly  recog- 
nized matters  of  common  interest  which  could  not  safely  be  left  to 
the  sole  decision  of  the  local  church.  From  the  troublous  times  in 
which  they  were  living,  when  to  be  known  as  a  Baptist  was  to 
subject  oneself  to  derision  if  not  more  perilous  forms  of  persecution, 
the  churches  had  little  need  of  self-protection  against  deceivers 
within.  The  ultimate  right  of  the  local  church  to  appoint  its  own 
minister  could  be  exercised  without  reference  to  other  churches. 
Thus  as  late  as  1694,  we  have  the  case,  cited  by  Ivimey,^''  of  the 

*  Taylor,  "Hist,  of  the  General  Baptists,"  Vol.  i,  p.  360.  An  interesting 
statement  of  the  ecclesiastical  polity  of  the  English  General  Baptist  churches 
will  be  found  in  Robert  Barclay's  "Inner  Life  of  the  Religious  Societies  of  the 
Commonwealth,"  pp.  354,  595.  On  page  352,  he  says :  "These  churches  were 
independent  churches  co-operating  in  all  matters  connected  with  the  ministry 
and  the  spread  of  the  Gospel." 

*  "Confessions  of  Faith,"  H.  K.  Society. 

"  Joseph  Ivimey,  "A  History  of  the  English  Baptists,"  Vol.  2,  p.  174. 


20  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN     AMERICA 

church  at  Kensworth,  in  Hertfordshire,  which  that  year  at  its  yearly 
meeting  "proceeded  not  only  to  elect,  but  to  charge  one  of  their 
number  to  break  bread  and  adininister  ordinances."  The  person  so 
elected  was  then  "set  apart  to  the  pastoral  employment  by  them- 
selves, without  foreign  aid  or  assistance."  Yet  there  is  already  a 
denominational  consciousness  which  demands  that  no  church  shall 
press  its  independency  to  the  point  of  infringement  upon  the  rights 
of  others.  For  example,  Ivimey,  in  speaking  of  an  ordination  in 
1667,  remarks,  "It  appears  probable  that  when  they  could  conveni- 
ently, they  invited  the  Elders  of  other  churches  to  assist  at  the 
service,  and  to  recognize  the  union,  as  has  been,  and  still  is,  the 
practice  of  our  churches."^^  While  the  absence  of  such  representa- 
tives would  not,  in  the  mind  of  the  seventeenth  century  Baptists, 
invalidate  an  ordination,  we  find,  as  we  follow  the  churches  well 
into  the  next  century  and  beyond,  that  there  is  the  distinct  recogni- 
tion of  the  growing  need  of  the  protection  of  the  ministerial  office 
and  some  modification  of  the  theoretic  rights  of  the  local  church  for 
the  common  weal.  The  similar  process  in  America  will  receive 
our  attention,  so  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  trace  it  further  in  Eng- 
land.^- Our  survey  of  the  relation  of  the  English  Baptist  churches 
to  one  another  has  been  primarily  to  show  what  was  likely  to  be  the 
attitude  of  such  English  Baptists  as  came  to  America.  Had  they 
been  nurtured  in  the  mother-country  in  a  fixed,  rigid  Independency, 
which  subordinated  all  else  to  the  absolute  authority  of  the  local 
church,  doubtless  they  would  have  at  once  placed  themselves  in 
opposition  to  any  institution  which  could  in  any  way  encroach  upon 
that  authority.  Our  study  has  shown  us.  however,  that  the  princi- 
ple of  fellowship,  with  the  obligations  springing  therefrom,  was 
well  recognized  by  the  English  Baptists,  who  upon  coming  to  Amer- 
ica would  be  willing  to  see  the  same  principle  embodied  in  the  politv 
of  the  Baptist  churches  of  the  New  World. 

2.     In  America. 
The  first  Baptist  church  in  America  was  organized  in  Providence, 
R.  I.,  in  1639.     Next  in  order  came  the  church  in  Newport,  probably 
organized  in  1644,  without  action,  however,  on  the  part  of  the  Provi- 

"Ibid.    P.  194. 

"The  following  quotation  from  the  records  of  the  church  at  Collier's 
Rents,  Southwark  (quoted  in  Baptist  Annual  Register,  1798)  is  typical  of  the 
eighteenth  century  practice.  "Jan.  30,  1744.  John  Rogers  .  .  .  was  set 
apart  to  the  work  and  office  of  pastor,  by  the  church,  with  fasting  and 
prayer.  Item.  Agreed  to  invite  the  following  ministers  and  messengers  of 
churches  to  assist  and  behold  our  faith  and  order  in  the  gospel,  in  the  more 
public  ratification  of  this  day's  work."  Six  ministers  are  named  and  two 
messengers  from  each  of  three  churches. 


EARLY     PRINCIPLES     OF    FELLOWSHIP  21 

dence  church.  To  pass  by  the  Baptists  of  Seekonk,  (Rehoboth), 
whose  separate  organization  is  questionable,  we  find  churches  form- 
ing in  the  following  order  in  New  England : —  Swansea,  (organ- 
ized in  Wales  in  1649),  1663;  Boston,  (Charlestown),  1665;  New- 
bury, 1682;  Kittery,  Maine,  1682.  The  first  two  churches  mentioned 
were  organized  independently,  although  according  to  Backus,  John 
]\Iiles,  the  pastor  of  the  former,  "often  visited  and  labored  with  his 
brethren  of  Boston  in  the  time  of  their  sufferings."  The  Newbury 
church,  however,  was  not  wholly  independent  in  its  origin  according 
to  the  records  of  the  First  Baptist  Church  of  Boston,  which  read  : — ^^ 
"Agreed   uppon  at  a   church   meeting  that   we  the 

Church  at  Boston  have  assented  unto  the  setleing  of  the 

church  at  Newberry.'' 

The  case  of  the  Kittery  church  is  of  much  greater  interest  and 
importance.  In  1681,  William  Screven  and  Humphrey  Churchwood 
of  that  place  had  been  baptized  and  united  with  the  Boston  church, 
which  soon  after,  at  the  request  of  several  of  its  members  resident 
in  Kittery,  granted  Screven  a  license  to  preach.  A  few  months 
later,  in  September,  1682,  the  Kittery  Baptists  forwarded  to  the 
Boston  church  the  request  that  they  be  set  off  as  a  separate  church. 
Messengers  were  sent  and  the  organization  of  the  Kittery  Baptists 
was  declared  to  be  "A  Church  of  Christ."  This  meeting  of  the 
messengers  from  Boston  with  the  Kittery  Baptists  has  been  called  a 
council,  and  if  it  was  that,  it  was  apparently  the  first  Baptist  council 
to  be  held  in  America.  It  is  necessary  for  us  to  turn  to  the  records 
of  the  Boston  church,  upon  which  we  are  dependent  for  our  infor- 
mation.^'* 

"Upon  serious  &  Solemn  Consideration  of  the  Church 
About  A  motion  or  Request  made  by  severall  members 
that  lived  att  Kittery,  yt  they  might  become  A  Church 
&  that  they  might  p — ceed  therein  provided  they  were 
such  as  should  be  Approved  for  such  A  Foundacon  work, 
the  Church  gave  there  grant  and  att  ye  time  Appointed 
did  send  severall  messengers  to  make  yt  strict  Inquiry 
&  Examinason  as  they  ought  in  such  A  case  who  att 
there  Returne  brought  ye  Coppys  here  inserted  26th  of 
7mo  1682. 

"The  Church  of  Christ  att  Boston  yt  is  baptized  upon 
profession  of  faith  haveing  taken  into  serious  considera- 
tion ye  Request  of  our  Brethren  att  Kittery  Relating  to 
there  being  A  Church  bv  themselves  vt  soe  thev  mieht 


'  Wood,  N.  E.— "Hist,  of  the  First  Bap.  Ch.  of  Boston,"  p.  178. 
'  Wood,  "Hist,  of  First  Bap.  Ch.  of  Boston,"  p.  180. 


22  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN     AMERICA 

Injoy  the  precious  ordinances  of  Christ  which  by  re  son 
of  distance  of  habitason  they  butt  seldome  could  injoy 
have  therefore  thought  meet  to  make  Choice  of  us  whose 
names  are  undewritten  as  Messengers  to  Assist  them  in 
ye  same  and  coming  up  to  them  we  have  found  them  A 
Competent  Number  and  in  ye  same  faith  with  us  for 
upon  carefull  examination  of  them  in  matters  of  Doctrine 
&  practise  &  soe  finding  one  with  us  by  there  (we  hope) 
Conshiencous  Acknowledgmtt  of  ye  Confession  of  faith 
putt  forth  by  ye  Elders  &  Brethren  of  ye  Churches  in 
London  and  ye  Contry  in  England  in  ye  year  1682. 

"And  they  haveing  given  themselves  up  to  ye  lord  & 
too  one  Another  in  A  Solemn  Covenant  to  walk  as  said 
Covenant  may  Express  &  alsoe  haveing  Chosen  theire 
officers  whome  they  with  us  have  Appointed  &  ordained, 
we  doe  therefore  in  ye  name  of  ye  lord  Jesus  &  by  the 
Appointmtt  of  his  Church  deliver  them  to  be  A  Church 
in  ye  faith  and  order  of  ye  Gospel, 
signed  by  us  in  ye  name 
of  ve  Church  the  25  of  7mo  1682. 

"ISAACK  HULL 
"THOMAS  SKINNER 
"PHILLIPP  SQUIRE." 
This  record  makes  no  specific  mention  of  the  organization  of  the 
meeting  of  the  Boston  messengers  with  the  Kittery  Baptists.  It 
was  evidently  conducted  with  order  and  decorum,  however,  so  the 
matter  of  formal  organization  is  unimportant.  A  careful  reading 
of  our  source  of  information  will  show  several  reasons  why  the 
meeting  cannot  be  called  strictly  a  council.  To  begin  with,  the 
matter  is  one  within  the  Boston  church  itself,  for  the  "Request"  is 
made  by  some  of  its  own  members,  and  is  made  of  that  church  only. 
The  messengers  were  practically  a  committee  of  the  church,  with 
power  to  examine  into  the  situation  at  Kittery  and,  if  they  should 
find  this  satisfactory,  to  act  for  the  church  which  had  already  given 
its  consent  conditional  upon  the  approval  of  this  committee'.  This 
seems  to  be  involved  in  the  action  of  the  church  when  it  "gave  there 
grant"  and  sent  the  "severall  messengers  to  make  yt  strict  Inquiry 
&  Examinason,"  as  well  as  in  the  action  of  the  messengers  who 
"doe  *  *  *  in  ye  name  of  ye  lord  Jesus  &  by  the  Appointmtt 
of  his  Church  deliver  them  to  be  A  Church  of  Christ."  We  have 
here  simply  a  church  setting  ofif  a  part  of  its  members  as  a  separate 
church.^  The  statement  concerning  the  choice,  appointment  and 
ordination  oi  the  church  officers  is  a  little  ambiguous  as  to  the 
precise  function  of  the  Boston  messengers  in  the  proceedings.    Prob- 


EARLY     PRINCIPLES     OF     FELLOWSHIP  23 

ablv  no  more  is  involved  than  their  approval  of  the  choice  and  their 
participation  in  the  formal  setting  apart  of  the  officers  chosen. 

The  action  of  the  Kittery  Baptists  is  significant,  however,  as  an 
indication  of  the  spirit  of  fellowship.  When  the  Boston  church 
Vv-as  organized,  its  constituent  members  came  in  part,  at  least,  from 
churches  in  England,  but  it  was  not  thought  necessary  for  the  ap- 
proval of  the  home  churches  to  be  secured  for  the  organization  of  a 
church  three  thousand  miles  away.  It  would  have  been  possible 
for  the  Kittery  Baptists  to  organize  themselves  into  a  church  without 
reference  to  the  church  of  which  all  or  most  of  them  were  members. 
Yet  they  rightly  felt  that  they  were  under  obligations,  which  rested 
on  the  principles  of  fellowship,  to  receive  the  sanction  of  the  Boston 
church  in  the  constitution  of  a  Baptist  church  in  Kittery. 

Up  to  about  the  time  of  the  Great  Awakening,  1740,  there  had 
been  organized  in  New  England  not  many  more  than  twenty  Baptist 
churches ;  aside  from  four  in  Connecticut  and  that  in  Kittery,  which 
had  early  removed  to  South  Carolina,  they  were  about  evenly  divided 
between  Alassachusetts  and  Rhode  Island.  Information  as  to  the 
early  history  of  these  churches  is  very  meagre,  and  the  present 
writer  has  been  unable  to  find  any  evidence  of  any  formal  relation 
between  them. 

In  1732,  when  thirty  members  of  the  First  Baptist  Church  of 
Swansea  withdrew  to  form  a  church  in  Rehoboth,  the  elders  and 
messengers  of  the  former  church  were  sent  to  assist  in  the  installa- 
tion of  John  Comer  as  pastor  of  the  new  church ;  but  this  case 
apparently  falls  into  the  same  class  with  the  instance  at  Kittery 
just  referred  to.^^ 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  Great  Awakening,  the  Baptists  were  rela- 
tively so  insignificant  in  New  England  outside  of  Rhode  Island  that 
there  would  be  little  occasion  for  inter-church  action  among  them. 
With  the  churches  of  the  so-called  "standing  order"  in  Massachu- 
setts and  Connecticut,  however,  the  question  of  inter-church  relation 
was  already  one  of  pressing  importance.  Differing  as  the  Baptists 
did  from  the  Congregationalists  both  on  the  subjects  and  the  mode 
of  baptism,  and  also  on  the  relation  of  the  church  and  state,  their 
principles  of  the  relation  of  the  local  churches  to  one  another  were 
not  fundamentally  different.  The  Baptists  were  not  wholly  ignorant 
of  the  writings  of  such  men  as  John  Cotton  and  Increase  Mather,^® 


"  Newman,  "Hist,  of  the  Baptist  Churches,"  p.  198. 

"  Cf.  Mather,  "The  First  Principles  of  New  England  Concerning  the  Sub- 
ject of  Baptisme  and  Communion  of  Churches."  Cambridge,  1675.  In  this  he 
quotes  (p.  28  sq.)  from  Cotton's  "Book  of  the  Keyes,"  ten  Propositions  bear- 
ing upon  inter-church  relations,  inckiding  the  function  of  councils. 


24  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN     AMERICA 

who  from  their  observation  of  the  actual  workings  of  Congrega- 
tionaHsm  in  church  poUty  were  able  to  discuss  the  principles  under- 
lying inter-church  relations.  In  his  lecture  on  "Ecclesiastical  Coun- 
cils/'^^  Dr.  Dexter  refers  to  about  twenty  Congregational  councils 
which  were  held  in  New  England  in  the  seventeenth  century,  and 
to  at  least  ten  more  before  the  Great  Awakening.  As  these  councils 
were  always  of  a  quasi  public  nature.  (Dexter  citing  two  cases 
where  the  town  itself  called  the  council),  the  institution  was  not 
wholly  unfamiliar  to  the  Baptists  of  New  England  probably  some 
decades  before  they  had  any  occasion  to  introduce  it  among  their 
own  churches. 

Before  the  Great  Awakening,  Baptist  churches  outside  of  New 
England  were  scarcely  to  be  found  in  sufficiently  close  proximity 
to  one  another  to  raise  the  question  of  inter-church  relations  except 
in  the  vicinity  of  Philadelphia.  There  the  church  at  Pennepek  first 
demands  our  attention.  Here  was  a  group  of  Baptist  families  from 
Wales,  with  some  others,  who  in  1688  organized  themselves  into  a 
church,  under  the  lead  of  Elias  Keach.  Although  Keach  had  been 
baptized  and  ordained  by  Elder  Dungan  of  the  Cold  Spring  Church, 
that  church  apparently  had  no  part  in  the  organization  or  recognition 
of  the  new  body.  The  familiar  incident  of  Reach's  early  imposture 
and  conversion  must  have  taught  the  need  of  safeguarding  the 
ministry. ^^  The  Pennepek  Church  became  a  centre  of  evangelistic 
effort,  the  result  being  many  baptisms  in  the  surrounding  region. 
These  converts  continued  for  some  time  as  members  of  the  Pennepek 
Church,  their  spiritual  interests  being  cared  for  through  frequent 
preaching  services  in  various  convenient  localities  and  bv  quarterly 
meetings  held  in  rotation  at  Burlington,  Cohansey,  Chester  and 
Philadelphia,  at  which  the  Lord's  Supper  was  celebrated.  This 
system  delayed  both  the  organization  of  separate  churches  and  con 
sequently  questions  of  inter-church  relations  which  otherwise  would 
doubtless  have  arisen.  Although  the  First  Church  in  Philadelphia 
was  formed  in  1698,  its  independence  from  the  Pennepek  Church 
was  not  recognized  in  any  formal  way  till  1746.  Some  churches 
had  been  formed  in  New  Jersey,  as  at  Middletown,  1688,  Piscataqua, 
1689,  and  Cohansey,  1691.  the  Welsh  Tract  church,  which  had 
been  organized  in  Wales,  "by  the  advice  and  counsel  of  the  churches 
they  came  from,"^''  and  had  come  over  to  Pennsylvania  in  a  body 
in  1701,  also  should  be  mentioned.  While  these  churches  were  in 
general  quite  active,  there  seem  to  have  been  at  first  no  formal  rela- 
tions among  them.     The  informal  general  or  quarterly  meetings,  to 

"  "Congregationalism,"  Lecture  X. 

''Vedder,  "Baptists  in  the  Middle  States,"  p.  59. 

"Minutes  of  the  Phil.  Bap.  Assoc.,  1707-1807,  p.  1$. 


EARLY     PRINCIPLES     OF     FELLOWSHIP  25 

which  reference  has  been  made,  continued  even  after  some  of  the 
local  companies  of  Baptists  hitherto  connected  with  the  Pennepek 
church  had  been  organized  into  churches. 

The  first  definite  manifestation  of  formal  fellowship  among 
the  Baptist  churches  of  America  was  the  organization  of  the  Phila- 
delphia Association  in  1707.  The  original  purposes  of  this  epoch- 
making  step  in  American  Baptist  polity,  according  to  the  statement 
in  the  records  of  the  Pennepek  church,  were  as  follows : — -° 

(i)     To  consult  about  deficiencies  in  the  churches  and 
to  set  them  in  order. 

(2)  To  protect  the  churches  from  unworthy  members 

and  ministers. 

(3)  To  provide  for  the  settlement  of  grievances  be- 

tween a  church  member  and  his  church. 

Whether  a  Constitution  was  adopted  at  this  time  is  doubtful. 
The  language  of  the  Pennepek  records  does  not  safeguard  the  au- 
tonomy of  the  local  church  as  did  the  Association  itself  later.  To 
carry  out  the  second  purpose,  it  was  agreed,  (to  use  the  language 
of  the  record), — 

"That  a  person  that  is  a  stranger,  that  has  neither 
letter  of  recommendation,  nor  is  known  to  be  a  person 
gifted,  and  of  good  conversation,  shall  not  be  admitted 
to  preach,  nor  be  entertained  as  a  member  in  any  of  the 
baptized  congregations  in  communion  with  each  other." 

It  may  be  argued  that  the  meeting  had  no  authority  to  legislate 
for  the  churches,  but  as  five  of  these  appoint  delegates  in  accordance 
with  the  plan  adopted  by  the  meeting,  they  probably  also  were 
guided  by  this  "agreement"  as  to  church  members  and  preachers. 
The  principle  involved  in  the  third  purpose  of  the  Association  would 
have  aroused  intense  opposition  not  much  later.  Here  also  it  will  be 
necessary  to  quote  the  language  of  the  Pennepek  record.-* 

"It  was  also  concluded,  that  if  any  difference  shall 
happen  between  any  member  and  the  church  he  belongs 
unto,  and  they  cannot  agree,  then  the  person  so  grieved 


""Newman,  "Hist,  of  the  Bap.  Churches,"  p.  211.  The  records  of  the 
Philadelphia  Association  begin  with  1760;  before  that  time,  we  are  dependent 
chiefly  upon  "x^n  Association  Book,  containing  a  Brief  Account  of  the  Be- 
ginning and  Progress  of  the  Churches  .  .  .  commonly  called  Baptists,  in 
Pennsylvania  and  the  Jerseys;  now  annually  associating  at  Philadelphia; 
.  .  .  Collected  pursuant  to  an  order  of  the  Association,  .  .  .  1749."  This  is  to 
be  found  in  the  "Minutes  of  the  Phil.  Bap.  Assoc,  1707-1807." 

"^  Newman,  p.  211. 


26  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN     AMERICA 

may,  at  the  general  meeting,  appeal  to  the  brethren  of  the 
several  congregations,  and  with  such  as  they  shall  nom- 
inate, to  decide  the  difference;  that  the  church  and  the 
person  so  grieved  do  fully  acquiesce  in  their  determina- 
tion." 
Here  is  distinctly  stated  the  right  of  an  aggrieved  member  of  a 
local  church  to  appeal  to  the  Association,  v^hich  itself  or  through  a 
committee  of  its  own  appointment  shall  decide  the  case ;  the  person 
so  appealing  thereby  agrees  to  acquiesce  in  the  verdict  of  this  court 
of  appeal,  while  the  church,  by  its  participation  in  the  Association, 
has  already  assented  to  acquiescence,  not  in  this  case  alone,  but  in  all 
cases  appealed  by  its  members.     Such  an  agreement  shows  either  a 
high  sense  of  the  mutual  obligations  of  churches  to  each  other,  or 
else  an  indifference  to  the  principles  of  independency  in  the  presence 
of  practical  benefits  to  be  derived  from  greater  centralization.    The 
latter  is  more  likely  the  true  explanation  of  the  situation.     But  in 
either  case,  the  idea  of  the  interdependence  of  the  churches  has 
somewhat  suddenly  crystallized  into  visible,  tangible  form, — into  an 
institution,  the  Association. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   ENTRANCE   OF   THE   COUNCIL  AS   A   RECOGNIZED    INSTITUTION    IN 

BAPTIST   POLITY. 

Although  the  Philadelphia  Association  had  as  one  of  its  specific 
functions  the  decision  of  any  differences  between  aggrieved  members 
and  their  church,  when  the  first  opportunity  came  for  one  of  the 
churches  to  profit  by  this  new  court  of  appeal,  strangely  enough  it 
did  not  do  so,  but  adopted  another  method  of  deciding  the  case  m 
controversy.  We  refer  to  an  incident  connected  with  the  Baptist 
church  of  Middletown,  N.  J.,  to  whose  action  in  1712  Morgan  Ed- 
wards refers  in  his  "Materials"  as  follows : — ^ 

"But  in  the  year  171 1,  a  variance  arose  in  the  church, 
in  so  much  that  one  party  excommunicated  the  other; 
and  imposed  silence  on  two  gifted  brothers  that  preached 
to  them,  viz.,  John  Bray  and  John  Okison.  Wearied 
with  their  situation,  they  agreed  to  refer  matters  to  a 
council  congregated  from  neighbouring  churches;  the 
council  met  May  25,  1712;  it  consisted  of  rev.  mess. 
Timothy  Brooks  of  Cohansey ;  Abel  Morgan  and  Joseph 
Wood,  of  Pennepek ;  and  Elisha  Thomas,  of  Welshtract, 
with  six  elders,  viz.,  Nicholas  Johnson,  James  James, 
Griffith  Miles,  Edward  Church,  William  Bettridge,  and 
John  Manners.    Their  advice  was 

"(i)     To  bury  their  proceedings  in  oblivion,  and 
erase  the  records  of  them';  accordingly  four  leaves  are 
torn  out  of  the  church  book. 

"(2)  'To  continue  the  silence  imposed  on  John 
Bray  and  John  Okison  the  preceding  year' ;  one  would 
think  by  this  that  those  two  brethren  were  the  cause  of 
the  disturbance. 

"(3)  'To  sign  a  covenant  relative  to  their  future 
conduct' ;  accordingly  42  did  sign,  and  26  refused ;  never- 
theless most  of  the  non-signers  came  in  afterwards ;  but 
the  first  42  were  declared  to  be  the  church  that  should  be 
owned  by  sister  churches. 

'Materials   towards   a  History  of  the   Baptists   in   Jersey."     Phil.    1792. 
p.  14. 

27 


28  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN     AMERICA 

"(4)  'That  rev.  mess.  Abel  Morgan  (seni.)  and 
John  Burrows  should  supply  the  pulpit  till  the  next  yearly 
meeting. 

"(5)  'That  the  members  should  keep  their  places 
and  not  wander  to  other  societies.'  " 

It  is  unfortunate  that  we  do  not  possess  a  more  detailed  account 
of  this,  probably  the  first  Baptist  council,  strictly  so  called,  to  be 
held  in  America.  Why  the  case  was  not  referred  to  the  Association 
of  which  all  the  churches  immediately  concerned  were  constituent 
members,  we  do  not  know ;  we  can  only  say  that  it  was  apparently 
not  from  any  opposition  to  the  Association  itself.  Of  greater  inter- 
est is  the  question  as  to  how  this  church  came  to  call  a  council  at 
all  to  settle  its  internal  troubles.  As  already  stated,  the  Congrega- 
tional ists  of  New  England  had  adopted  the  council,  and  it  had  also 
some  recognition  in  the  polity  of  the  English  Baptist  churches.  As 
Middle  Jersey  contained  many  immigrants  from  New  England  and 
also  from  England  and  Wales,  including  "several  able  men,  ministers 
and  elders,  *  *  *  and  some  that  had  been  ruling  elders  in  the 
churches  they  came  from — all  of  them  men  long  concerned  in  the 
affairs  of  churches  and  associations  in  their  own  countries,"-  we  may 
assume  that  the  Baptists  of  Philadelphia  and  vicinity  were  not  wholly 
ignorant  of  the  council.  In  this  particular  case  at  Middletown,  it  is 
very  possible  that  it  was  thought  wiser  not  to  delay  the  settlement 
of  the  strife  until  the  Association  should  meet.  So  the  appeal  was 
made  directly  to  several  of  the  churches  to  nominate  some  of  their 
brethren  who  should  consider  the  case  and  decide  it.  in  the  same 
way  as  would  a  committee  appointed  through  the  Philadelphia  As- 
sociation. If,  as  seems  likely,  the  "yearly  meeting"  referred  to  in 
the  fourth  article  of  advice  is  that  of  the  Association,  which  would 
be  an  opportune  time  to  secure  a  permanent  pulpit  supply,  there 
would  be  less  likelihood  that  the  council  would  be  charged  with  in- 
truding upon  the  sphere  of  the  Association. 

While  there  is  nothing  stated  in  the  record  about  the  formal 
organization  of  this  council,  it  is  referred  to  specifically  as  a  council 
in  Edwards'  narrative ;  moreover,  the  definite  manner  in  which  the 
decision  of  the  council  is  given,  with  its  evident  firm  grasp  of  the 
situation,  implies  not  only  that  it  proceeded  in  an  orderly  manner, 
but  that  it  considered  itself  as  a  distinct  body  in  a  sense  that  the  dele- 
gates to  Kittery  in  1682  had  not  thought  of  themselves  as  distinct 
from  the  church  at  Boston  which  they  represented. 

The  following  month  some  Baptists  at  Cape  May  Court  House, 
New  Jersey,  asked  the  Cohansey  church  to  assist  them  in  the  organ- 

•  Quoted  by  Newman,  "Hist,  of  the  Bap.  Churches,"  p.  212. 


THE    ENTRANCE    OF    THE    COUNC  L  29 

ization  of  a  church  at  that  place.  In  response  to  this  invitation,  the 
pastor,  Rev.  Timothy  Brooks,  who  had  participated  in  the  council 
at  jNIiddletown,  and  two  deacons  were  sent  to  advise  with  them  and 
to  assist  in  the  constitution  of  the  church.  On  June  24,  171 2,  the 
three  messengers  signed  the  following  article : — " 

"In  as  much  as  you  have  covenanted  together  to  walk 
in  church  fellowship  according  to  Gospel  institution ;  we 
do  in  the  presence  of  God  declare  you  to  be  a  church  of 
Jesus   Christ ;    *    "■'-    '''    We  subscribe  ourselves    '■'    '■'    * 
on  behalf  of  the  Cohansey  Church." 
This  is  a  little  different  from  the  Kittery  case,  for  the  Cape  INIay 
Baptists   do  not  appear  to  have  been   members  of   the  Cohansey 
Church.     Whether  this  can  be  properly  classed  as  a  council  is  a 
little   uncertain,  for  these  messengers  may  have  considered  them- 
selves merely  a  committee  of  the  Cohansey  Church ;  yet  their  relation 
to  the  Cape  May  church  is  precisely  that  of  a  council,  as  is  the  work 
whicli  they  perform. 

When  the  Philadelphia  Association  met  this  same  year,  (1712), 
there  came  before  it  the  first  case  in  which  the  machinery  of  the 
Association  was  used  for  the  settlement  of  a  difficulty  within  one 
of  its  constituent  churches,  in  accordance  with  the  original  plan  of 
its  organization.  The  trouble  centred  about  Thomas  Selby,  the 
pastor  of  the  Philadelphia-Pennepek  church,  which  was  in  a  seri- 
ously distraught  condition.  The  Association  did  not  take  the  initi- 
ative, for  the  case  was  brought  before  it  by  application,  though  by 
which  party  the  record  does  not  state.  A  committee  was  then 
appointed  by  the  Association  from  among  its  own  members,  to  hear 
and  determine  the  matter.  Before  proceeding,  however,  the  com- 
mittee secured  the  consent  of  both  parties  to  their  consideration  of 
the  case.  After  hearing  the  evidence,  they  brought  in  their  deci- 
sion, wdiich  was  against  Selby ;  they  advised  that  he  be  "discharged 
from  any  further  service  in  the  work  of  the  ministry,"  though  also 
that  he  be  paid  in  full. 

The  records  of  the  Philadelphia  Association  for  the  next  sixty 
years  of  its  history  are  defective,  but  so  far  as  they  are  preserved, 
they  do  not  contain  any  other  instance  in  these  early  formative  years 
when  the  Association,  either  directly  or  through  a  committee,  sat 
as  a  court  of  appeal  upon  a  case  of  dissension  within  a  church.  In 
1734,  the  Association  advised  the  church  at  Great  Valley  to  divide, 
but  in  case  "they  happen  to  jar  or  disagree,  or  any  persons  be  dis- 
satisfied, *  ■■'  *  that  in  such  cases  they  shall  call  help  from 
neighboring  churches."    There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  is  a  direct 


Hires,  A.  J.,  "Hist.  Sketch  of  the  ist  Cape  May  Bap.  Church." 


30  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN     AMERICA 

reference  to  a  council  as  distinct  from  the  Association,  and  from  this 
time  on,  the  rise  and  development  of  the  council  are  to  be  traced 
both  in  its  actual  use  as  an  institution,  for  practical  purposes  in 
church  polity  and  in  the  attempt  of  Associations  to  differentiate  be- 
tween their  own  legitimate  functions  and  those  which  may  be  more 
wisely  entrusted  to  a  council  of  the  churches. 

We  have  already  noticed  the  reason,  lying  in  the  small  number 
of  churches  and  their  remoteness,  in  many  cases,  from  one  another, 
why  there  would  be  little  occasion  for  councils  among  the  Baptists 
before  their  rapid  increase  following  the  Great  Awakening.  In 
Massachusetts,  however,  where  the  churches  of  the  standing  order 
had  already  introduced  the  institution,  being  from  the  fact  of  their 
Establishment  constrained  to  a  formal  orderliness,  it  was  only 
natural  that  the  most  conspicuous  Baptist  church,  that  in  Boston, 
should  feel  under  a  similar  constraint  that  it  might  free  itself  from 
the  charge  of  disorderliness  which  usually  hangs  over  Dissent.  Dif- 
fering as  they  did  from  the  Congregational  churches  of  Boston  on 
the  doctrine  of  baptism,  the  Baptists  yet  desired  to  receive  Christian 
recognition  from  those  with  whose  other  ftmdamental  principles 
they  were  in  general  accord.  So  in  1718,  when  they  had  decided  to 
set  apart  Elisha  Callender,  the  son  of  their  pastor,  to  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  they  sent  the  following  letter  "to  Dr  Mather  &  Mr  Webb 
to  be  communicated  to  their  Churches."* 

"Honored  &  Beloved  in  the  Lord 

"Considering  that  there  ought  to  be  a  holy  fellowship 
maintained  among  godly  Christians  and  that  it  is  a  Duty 
for  us  to  Receive  one  another  as  Christ  also  Receives  us 
to  the  glory  of  god  notwithstanding  some  Differing  per- 
suasions in  matters  of  Doubtfull  Disputations,  and  al- 
though we  have  not  so  great  Latitude  as  to  the  Subject 
of  Baptism  as  the  Churches  in  New  England  generally 
have,  notwithstanding  as  to  fundamentall  principles  in 
your  Doctrine  of  Christ  both  as  to  the  faith  &  order  of 
the  Gospell,  we  Concur  with  them  being  also  satisfied 
that  particular  Churches  have  power  from  Christ  to 
Choose  their  own  Pastors  &  that  Elders  ought  to  be  or- 
dained in  Every  Church  &  haveing  Chosen  our  well  be- 
loved Brother  Elisha  Callender  to  be  our  pastor  we 
Intreat  you  to  send  your  Elders  &  Messengers  to  give 
us  the  Right  hand  of  fellowship  in  his  ordination. 

"In  ye  name  of  ye  Church." 


Wood,  Hist,  of  First  Bap.  Ch.,  Boston,  p.  201. 


THE  ENTRANCE  OF  THE  COUNCIL  3I 

This  invitation  was  accepted  by  the  two  churches,  which  sent 
their  pastors  and  messengers  to  assist  in  the  ordination.  To  be  sure, 
here  also  we  lack  definite  information  as  to  what  took  place,  espe- 
cially as  to  whether  there  was  any  preliminary  examination  of  the 
candidate  by  these  delegates,  or  if  there  was  only  the  public  service. 
If  the  latter  was  the  case,  this  can  hardly  be  called  a  council.  As 
only  Congregational  churches  were  invited,  there  is  some  doubt  as 
to  whether  the  matter  of  the  ordination  of  Callender  would  be  sub- 
mitted to  them ;  they  were  invited  to  give  the  Baptists  "the  Right 
hand  of  fellowship  in  his  ordination." 

Twenty  years  later,  upon  the  death  of  Mr.  Callender,  the  church 
chose  Jeremiah  Condy  as  its  pastor  and  invited  the  Cambridge  and 
two  Boston  churches, — these  three  being  Congregational, — and  the 
Newport  Baptist  church  to  send  their  pastors  and  messengers  to 
assist  in  his  ordination.  The  letter  addressed  to  the  Cambridge 
church  which  is  preserved  in  the  records  of  the  Boston  church,  is 
probably  the  earliest  extant  copy  of  a  formal  letter  missive  sent  by 
an  American  Baptist  church  asking  for  a  council,  and  so  is  entitled 
to  a  place  here.'' 

"Boston  January  24,  1738.  To  the  Church  of  Christ 
in  Cambridge  under  the  pastoral  care  of  Revd  Mr  Na- 
thanael  Appleton. 

"Hond  &  beloved  in  the  Lord. 

"The  Church  of  Christ  in  Boston  lately  under  the 
care  of  the  Revd  Mr  Elisha  Callender  deceased,  having 
unanimously  made  choice  of  Mr  Jeremiah  Condy  to  take 
upon  him  the  pastoral  charge  of  this  Church,  of  which 
Mr  Condy  has  declared  his  acceptance, — This  is  there- 
fore. Hond  &  beloved  Brn  to  request  of  you  to  send 
your  Revd  Elder  &  Messengers  to  assist  at  ye  ordination 
of  our  Said  Elected  Pastor  on  the  Second  Wednesday  in 
February  next —  A  request  of  the  like  tenoar  with  this 
we  have  made  to  the  Churches  in  Boston  under  ye  care  of 
ye  Revd  Messrs  Welsted  &  Gray,  and  Mr  Wm  Hooper 
&  to  ye  Church  in  Newport  under  ye  care  of  the  Revd 
Mr  John  Callender,  Hond  &  Beloved.  We  heartily 
wish  you  all  spiritual  blessing  in  Christ  Jesus  the  glori- 


Wood,  Hist,  of  First  Bap.  Ch.,  Boston,  p.  234. 


32  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

ous  head  of  the  Church.    We  are  in  behalf  and  by  order 
of  the  Church  vour  affectionate  Brethren  in  the  Gospel 

"SHEM  DROWNE  DEACON. 

"JOHN  CALLENDER, 

"JAMES  BOUND, 

"BENJ  LANDON, 

"JOHN   PROCTOR."' 

There  is  a  noticeable  difference  in  tone  between  this  letter  and 
the  letter  sent  in  1718,  which  was  somewhat  halting  and  apologetic, 
chiefly  because  it  was  uncertain  what  reception  it  would  have  from 
the  two  churches  to  which,  through  their  pastors,  it  was  addressed. 
The  earlier  letter,  moreover,  is  not  so  formal  as  is  the  later  one, 
which  is  expressed  more  in  the  phraseology  of  the  letter  missive 
technically  so  called.  The  messengers,  except  Mr.  Welsted,  who 
was  sick  at  the  time,  came  together  on  February  14,  1738,  and  or- 
ganized by  choosing  Rev.  Mr.  Appleton  as  Moderator.  This  was 
"at  the  house  of  Brother  Skinner  Russell,"  where  they  "having 
agreed  upon  the  public  proceedings  of  the  day  adjourned  to  the 
meeting-house,  when  the  ordination  was  carried  out."  Here  we 
have  an  organized  council,  though  we  do  not  have  the  definite  in- 
formation that  they  subjected  Mr.  Condy  to  any  preliminary  exam- 
ination ;  the  record  only  informs  us  that  they  "agreed  upon  the 
public  proceedings  of  the  day"  ;  that  is,  they  arranged  the  public 
service,  in  which  Mr.  Gray  began  with  prayer,  Mr.  Callender 
preached  the  sermon,  Mr.  Appleton  gave  the  charge  and  Mr.  Hooper 
the  right  hand  of  fellowship.*^ 

In  1727,  a  Baptist  movement  had  started  in  Springfield,  Mass. 
About  thirty  of  the  people  who  were  interested  signed  a  formal 
letter  which  they  sent  to  the  Boston  church,  of  which  some  of  them 
were  members,  asking  that  the  pastor,  Mr.  Callender,  be  sent  to 
advise  and  instruct  them.  The  invitation  met  with  a  hearty  response, 
the  pastor  and  three  brethren  being  sent  at  the  expense  of  the  church, 
while  any  other  brethren  of  the  church  who  might  attend  were  also 
authorized  to  appear  "in  the  name  of  ye  Church."  As  a  result  of 
this  visit,  eleven  persons  were  baptized  on  July  23,  and  during 
another  visit,  in  September  of  the  next  year,  six  more  were  baptized. 
These  all  were  considered  members  of  the  Boston  church.  In  1740, 
the  Springfield  Baptists  wrote  to  the  Boston  church  asking  that 
they  might  be  organized  as  a  separate  church,  and  that  the  pastor 
and  messengers  might  be  sent  to  assist  them  in  the  ordination  of 
Edward  Upham.  whom  they  had  unanimously  chosen  as  their  pastor. 

'  Wood,  p.  235. 


THE  ENTRANCE  OF  THE  COUNCIL  33 

The  Baptist  churches  in  Rehoboth,  Mass.,  New  London,  Conn.,  and 
Newport  R  I.,  were  also  asked  to  meet  in  the  council,  but  no  Con- 
o-reo-ational  church  was  invited.  This,  then,  would  appear  to  be  the 
first" <;trictlv  Baptist  council  to  be  held  in  New  England.  Apparently 
the  Rehoboth  and  New  London  churches  did  not  send  delegates. 
The  proceedings  of  the  council  as  preserved  in  the  records  of  the 
Boston  church  were  as  follows: — " 

"Springfield  Oct  14.  1740  at  the  house  of  Mr  Lam- 
berton  Cooper  the  Church  of  Boston  and  the  Church  of 
Newport  under  the  pastoral  care  of  Mr  John  Callender, 
being  met  bv  their  Elders  and  messengers,  and  formed 
into  a  Council,  of  which  Mr  John  Callender  was  chosen 
moderator,  after  Solemn  prayer  for  the  divine  blessing 
on  the  imoortant  affair  going  to  be  transacted,  the  re- 
quest of  the  Brethren  of  the  Baptist  denomination  resi- 
dent in  and  about  Springfield  to  the  church  in  Boston 
requesting  their  dismission  for  ye  end  aforesaid  was  read, 
and  an  attested  Copy  of  the  Vote  of  the  church  in  Bos- 
ton requesting  yr  dismission  was  produced — upon  which 
the  following  persons  appeared  and  Signified  their  desire 
to  be  dismissed  for  ye  purpose  above  mentioned,  namely," 
(Here  follow  fifteen  names.). 
The  public  services  of  recognition  were  held  the  following  day, 
when,  also,  Mr.  Upham  was  ordained  as  pastor  of  the  Springfield 
church. 

The  First  Church  of  Boston  called  its  third  council  m  December, 
1764,  when  letters  were  sent  to  three  of  the  four  Congregational 
churches  of  that  citv  requesting  that  they  send  their  "Revd  Elders 
&  such  other  Delegates"  as  they  should  think  proper  to  sit  in  council 
concerning  the  installation  of 'the  Rev.  Samuel  Stillman  as  pastor 
of  the  church.*  No  Baptist  churches  were  invited,  probably  in  part 
because  the  First  Church  had  been  at  odds  with  many  of  the  other 
Baptist  churches  of  New  England.  Naturally  the  Second  Baptist 
Church,  although  located  less  than  a  block  away,  was  not  invitedto 
send  delegates,  for  a  two-fold  reason.  In  the  first  place  Mr.  Still- 
man  was  called  away  from  the  Second  Church  v/here  he  had  been 
associate  pastor.  Moreover,  the  Second  Church  had  split  off  from 
the  First  in  1743,  being  originally  composed  of  members  of  the 
latter  church  who  had  accused  the  pastor,  Mr.  Condy,  of  preaching 
Arminian  doctrines.  After  being  suspended  from  communion,  they 
had  organized  themselves  as  an  independent  church.     They  did  not 

'Wood,  p.  239. 

*  A  copy  of  the  letter  will  be  found  in  Wood,  p.  248. 


34  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

seek  immediate  recognition  by  the  First  or  other  Baptist  churches, 
but  when,  two  months  later,  they  selected  one  of  their  number,  Eph- 
raini  Bound,  as  their  pastor,  they  desired  to  have  the  assistance  of 
other  Baptist  churches.  As  they  wished  to  make  sure  of  a  soundly 
Calvinistic  council,  it  was 

"unanimously  agreed  that  Elder  Wightman  of  Groton 
in  Connecticut,  Elder  Green  of  Leicester,  and  Elder 
Moulton  of  Brimfield,  be  sent  or  wrote  to,  to  assist  with 
their  respective  messengers  at  the  time  and  place  afore- 
said. (Greenwich,  R.  I.,  the  first  Wednesday  in  Septem- 
ber.) N.  B.  The  said  Elders  Wightman,  Green  and 
Moulton,  we  apprehend  to  be  sound,  clear,  and  zealously 
affected  to  the  doctrines  of  free  and  sovereign  grace,  and 
absolutely  averse  to  the  Pelagian  and  Arminian 
tenets.'"' 

Greenwich,  Rhode  Island,  was  selected  as  the  place  of  meeting 
instead  of  Boston,  on  account  of  Elder  Wightman,  who  was  ad- 
vanced in  years ;  but  the  council  was  finally  held  at  Warwick,  Rhode 
Island.  The  language  of  the  record  shows  that  not  only  the  min- 
isters, but  messengers  of  their  churches  were  invited  to  attend  upon 
the  ordination. 

The  New  Light  movement,  arising  from  the  Great  Awakening, 
was  disturbing  not  only  to  the  churches  of  the  standing  order  in 
New  England,  but  to  the  Baptist  churches  as  well,  although  on  the 
■whole,  the  Baptist  cause  profited  greatly  by  it.  In  1750,  an  Elder 
Sprague  had  gone  to  Exeter,  R.  I.,  where  he  had  organized  a 
Baptist  church,  most  of  its  members  being  favorable  to  the  New 
Light  ideas.  On  May  23,  1753,  representatives  of  some  twenty-five 
New  Light  churches  met  with  the  Exeter  church  to  consider  the 
terms  of  fellowship  and  communion, — a  second  similar  council  being 
held  at  the  same  place  the  following  year.^''  These  gatherings  per- 
haps belong  more  properly  to  the  history  of  Congregational  councils  ; 
but  as  the  Exeter  church  was  avowedly  a  Baptist  church,  and  some  of 
the  other  New  Light  churches  were  composed  of  both  Baptists  and 
Pedobaptists,  and  moveover  as  Elder  Sprague  himself,  a  staunch 


*  Church  Record,  quoted  in  "Hist,  of  the  Second  Baptist  Church,"  in 
Christian  Watchman,  April  15,  1836. 

'"The  council  of  1753  appointed  Elder  Sprague  and  three  other  Elders 
to  go  to  Middleborough,  Mass.,  to  sit  in  council  with  the  New  Light  church 
there,  of  which  Isaac  Backus  was  pastor  and  which  was  in  a  disturbed  con- 
dition over  the  question  of  baptism.  In  1756,  Backus  organized  a  Baptized 
Church  at_  Middleborough  and  from  that  time  is  an  important  factor  in  the 
denominational  life.  The  history  of  the  Exeter  church  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Narragansett  Historical  Register,  Vol.  2,  p.  3  sq. 


THE  ENTRANCE  OF  THE  COUNCIL  35 

Baptist,  was  active  in  both  meetings,  they  may  be  mentioned  as 
showing  a  point  of  contact  between  the  two  denominations  in  the 
development  of  the  council.  The  decisions  of  the  two  councils  were 
favorable  to  open  communion,  with  which  the  Exeter  church  con- 
curred. Mr.  Sprague,  however,  was  a  believer  in  restricted  com- 
munion, and  so  found  himself  out  of  harmony  with  his  flock.  In 
1757  he  had  withdrawn  from  fellowship  with  the  church,  although 
the  pastoral  relation  had  not  been  formally  severed.  A  council  met 
in  July  of  that  year, — presumably  of  New  Light  churches, — and 
another  one  in  November,  which  advised  the  church  to  withdraw 
from  its  pastor,  which  it  did.  The  Exeter  church,  during  this 
period,  was  in  closer  relation  to  the  New  Light  Congregationalists 
than  it  was  to  the  Baptists,  but  later  it  adopted  restricted  communion. 

While  we  might  continue  to  trace  the  individual  councils  which 
were  held  with  increasing  frequency  as  the  churches  grew  in  num- 
ber and  their  fraternal  relations  became  closer,  we  have  perhaps 
followed  sufficiently  far  the  process  of  the  introduction  of  the 
council  as  an  institution  to  meet  in  a  practical  way  certain  situations 
in  which  some  of  the  local  churches  found  themselves.  These 
councils  at  which  we  have  been  looking  were  called  by  the  churches, 
not  in  accord  with  any  well-defined  precedents  of  denominational 
usage,  for  they  did  not  have  these  for  their  guidance,  but  as 
practical  agencies  for  securing  w'hat  they  wished  to  accomplish 
through  them.  As  has  already  been  suggested,  some  of  the  Baptists 
may  have  been  cognizant  of  the  customs  of  the  English  Baptists ; 
more  probably,  the  American  Baptists  simply  profited  by  the  experi- 
ences of  the  Congregational  churches,  which,  earlier  than  them- 
selves, were  forced  to  meet  the  problems  of  inter-church  relations. 

With  the  organization  of  the  Philadelphia  Association,  there 
came  the  opportunity  for  the  Baptists  to  develop  more  rapidly  a  con- 
sistent system  of  church  polity,  and  this  opportunity  was  enlarged 
as  other  associations  were  formed.  Of  these,  the  Warren  Associa- 
tion was  next  to  its  prototype  in  importance.  This  was  partly 
because  of  the  general  influence  of  New  England.  More  specifically, 
the  Baptist  leaders  in  New  England,  who  guided  the  Warren  Asso- 
ciation between  many  a  Scylla  and  Charybdis  as  new  problems  of 
great  moment  confronted  the  churches,  were  men  of  strong  intellect, 
whose  opinions  were  respected  and  their  counsels  potent  whereso- 
ever they  reached.  We  will  now  turn  to  some  of  these  Associations 
to  see  what  evidence  there  is  in  their  actions  of  what  w-e  may  call  the 
denominational  recognition  of  the  council  as  a  legitimate"  part  of 
Baptist  polity. 

It  was  very  natural  that  the  churches  should  find  in  the  annual 
meetings  of  the  Associations  an  opportunity  for  obtaining  informa- 


36  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

tion  and  advice  on  various  matters  both  of  doctrine  and  polity  as 
questions  concerning  these  arose  in  the  early  churches.  We  have 
already  noted  that  in  1734,  the  Philadelphia  Association  had  sug- 
gested the  advisability  of  holding  a  council  in  case  of  dissension  in 
a  local  church.  It  became  the  custom  for  churches  to  address 
"Queries"  to  their  Association,  which,  after  discussion  and  possibly 
reference  to  a  committee  for  more  careful  deliberation,  were  an- 
swered, both  "Query"  and  "Answer"  often  appearing  in  the  records 
of  the  Association.  Although  the  decisions  of  the  Associations  were 
considered  as  advisory  only,  yet  they  were  recognized  as  the  thought- 
ful and  deliberate  opinion  of  representative  Baptists,  and  so  were 
of  great  influence  in  shaping  the  denominational  traditions.  Some- 
times the  matter  suggested  by  a  "Query"  was  of  sufficient  import- 
ance to  become  the  topic  for  the  "Circular  Letter"  which  it  was  the 
custom  for  many  of  the  Associations  to  address  each  year  to  their 
constituent  churches. 

In  the  first  half-century  of  the  history  of  the  Philadelphia  Asso- 
ciation, it  frec|uently  performed  functions  which  to-day  are  more 
regularly  exercised  by  councils.  In  1745,  for  example,  at  the 
request  of  the  church  at  Bethlehem,  tv/o  of  the  "reverend  brethren" 
of  the  Association  were  sent  to  that  town  to  assist  at  the  ordination 
of  a  minister.  A  few  days  later,  they  were  "to  be  at  Cranberry,  in 
order  to  settle  the  members  there  in  church  order."  In  1752,  the 
church  at  Opocken,  Virginia,  applied  to  the  Philadelphia  Associa- 
tion for  assistance,  "some  difficulty  subsisting  between  the  church 
and  their  minister."  Four  years  later,  John  Davis  was  ordained  at 
the  meeting  of  the  Association,  which  acted  virtually  as  a  council. 
In  1 78 1,  after  a  council  of  ministers  had  decided  a  controversy 
between  the  First  Baptist  Church  of  Philadelphia  and  its  minister, 
Rev.  Elhanan  Winchester,  against  the  latter,  the  case  was  carried 
to  the  Association,  which  appointed  a  committee  to  consider  it. 
This  committee  made  its  report,  confirming  the  earlier  decision  of 
the  council  of  ministers,  to  the  Association,  which  unanimously 
approved  it.  This  mode  of  procedure  on  the  part  of  the  Association 
is  interesting,  as  it  was  practically  a  return  to  the  method  adopted 
in  the  original  plan  of  its  organization  in  1707. 

In  the  South,  too,  the  Baptists  made  use  of  the  Association  both 
for  advice  and  for  denominational  recognition  and  approval.  Thus 
in  1787,  the  Fishing  Creek  Church  wrote  to  the  Georgia  Association 
"as  to  an  advisory  council," — to  quote  the  language  of  the  letter. 
This  phrase  implies  that  the  Georgia  Baptists  already  looked  upon 
the  council  as  a  recognized  institution.  The  previous  year,  this 
Association  had  answered  queries  submitted  to  it  as  to  the  power  of 
the  churches  to  ordain  and  to  silence  ministers,  and  at  later  sessions, 


THE    ENTRANCE    OF    THE    COUNCIL  37 

it  frequently  expressed  its  opinion  on  matters  of  polity.  Similar 
questions  are  to  be  found  in  the  records  of  the  Charleston  and  other 
southern  Associations,  to  some  of  which  it  will  be  necessary  later 
to  refer. 

In  New  England,  as  already  stated,  the  organization  of  the 
Warren  Association  in  1767  was  an  important  step  in  the  develop- 
ment of  Baptist  polity,  for  this  Association  not  only  from  time  to 
time  expressed  opinion  as  to  what  was  "regular"  in  church  practice, 
but  also  itself  established  precedents.  While  in  many  matters  it 
could  profit  by  the  experiences  of  the  Congregational  churches,  in 
many  others  it  must  be  a  pioneer  and  work  out  its  own  ecclesiastical 
principles  and  the  methods  of  applying  them.  In  1776,  the  Associa- 
tion found  itself  confronted  by  a  situation  peculiarly  difficult.  The 
"brethren  from  Attleboro  objected  against  sitting  with  those  from 
Bellingham,  because  of  a  breach  that  had  taken  place  betwixt  those 
churches."  A  council  had  already  been  held  in  regard  to  the  contro- 
versy; of  that  council  we  know  only  that  it  failed  to  secure  a 
reconciliation.  For  the  Association  to  ignore  the  controversy  which 
the  Attleboro  brethren  had  thus  brought  to  its  attention  would  be 
virtually  to  decide  against  them ;  while  to  hear  the  case  would  appar- 
ently transform  the  Association  into  a  court  of  appeal,  a  danger  to 
the  independency  of  the  local  church  which  some  of  the  opponents  of 
the  Association  thought  constantly  imminent.  The  action  of  the 
Association  was  eminently  wise  and  conservative.  After  careful 
deliberation,  having  secured  the  consent  of  the  parties  concerned, 
a  committee  was  appointed  to  hear  the  case  at  Wrentham, — a  town 
lying  between  Attleboro  and  Bellingham, — to  "do  their  utmost  to 
settle  the  controversy  between  these  churches ;  and  to  make  report 
of  the  effects  of  their  labours"  at  the  next  annual  meeting  of  the 
Association.  This  action  was  similar  in  principle  to  the  primitive 
method  of  the  Philadelphia  Association.  The  Warren  Association, 
however,  did  not  wish  its  action  to  be  interpreted  as  in  any  sense 
hostile  to  the  council  as  now  a  more  regular  agent  in  the  recon- 
ciliation of  churches  which  were  in  controversy.  So  the  members  of 
the  council  which  had  previously  heard  the  case  were  invited  to 
attend  the  new  hearing.  In  1777,  the  committee  was  able  to  report 
to  the  Association  the  success  of  their  efforts,  by  which  a  satisfactory 
settlement  of  the  trouble  between  the  two  churches  was  reached. 

We  have  selected  this  incident  not  as  an  isolated  case,  but  be- 
cause it  is  a  typical  illustration  of  the  attitude  of  the  Associations 
toward  the  council.  We  have  already  noted  several  instances  where 
an  Association  exercised  the  functions  which  to-day  would  belong 
to  a  council.  As  the  churches  were  constantly  turning  to  their 
Associations   for  advice  concerning  questions  of  polity,  and  it  is 


38  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

supposed  to  be  the  natural  tendency  of  institutions  to  arrogate  to 
themselves  as  much  power  and  influence  as  possible,  why  did  not  the 
Association  crowd  out  the  council  as  superfluous  ?  The  answer  is 
partly  involved  in  the  broader  problem  of  the  self-limitation  in 
general  of  the  Association  which  is  outside  our  immediate  subject. 
We  can,  however,  point  out  a  few  instances  of  Associational  action 
which  illustrate  the  fact  that  the  Association  was  never  consciously 
hostile  to  the  council,  but  on  the  contrary,  sought  to  establish  it  more 
generally  among  the  churches  and  make  its  place  in  Baptist  polity 
more  secure. 

In  1756,  the  Charleston  Association  of  South  Carolina  had  an- 
swered a  Query  concerning  the  finality  of  the  decision  of  a  majority 
in  a  church  by  asserting, 

"No  church  or  majority  of  a  church  has  power  to 
bind  the  conscience;  If  therefore  the  majority  should 
introduce  errors  subversive  of  the  peace  of  the  church, 
and  wound  the  consciences  of  the  brethren,  the  minority 
may,  after  all  proper  methods  to  reclaim  the  rest  by  calm 
reasoning,  by  calling  in  the  assistance  of  the  other 
churches,  and  by  referring  the  matter  to  the  Association, 
should  these  prove  ineffectual,  be  received  as  the  church, 
and  the  majority  disowned.''^^ 

This  language  is  a  little  ambiguous ;  the  phrase  "should  these 
prove  ineffectual"  may  go  with  the  preceding  clause,  which  would 
make  this  a  recognition  of  the  Association  as  a  court  of  appeal  after 
the  failure  of  a  council  to  effect  a  reconciliation.  More  probably  it  is 
to  be  connected  with  the  phrase,  "may  be  received ;"  that  is,  the  ref- 
erence is  to  three  possible  modes  of  procedure  open  to  an  aggrieved 
minority, — to  convince  the  majority  "by  calm  reasoning"  that  the  min- 
ority are  in  the  right;  or,  failing  in  that,  to  carry  the  case  to  a 
council  or  to  the  Association.  By  either  interpretation  of  the  phrase, 
however,  it  is  evident  that  the  council  was  looked  upon  bv  the 
Charleston  Association  as  early  as  1756  as  the  first  and  proper 
agency  for  the  settlement  of  any  difficulty  within  a  church  which 
the  latter  was  unable  itself  to  adjust  satisfactorily.^- 

In  1772,  when  the  First  Baptist  Church  of  New  York  objected  to 
the  admission  of  the  Second  Church  into  the  Philadelphia  Associa- 
tion "on  account  of  difficulties  subsisting  between  the  two  churches," 
"they  were  advised  to  call  the  aid  of  some  sister  churches  to  assist 


"  Furman  Wood,  "A  Hist,  of  the  Charleston  Assoc,"  p.  36. 

'■The  Attleborough-Bellingham  case  referred  to  on  page  zi  would 
be  in  principle  an  illustration  under  the  first  interpretation  given  above,  al- 
though the  trouble  there  was  not  internal  but  one  between  two  churches. 


THE  ENTRANCE  OF  THE  COUNCIL  39 

in  settling  them.  Accordingly  they  chose  our  brethren"'  (five 
named )  *  *  *  "who  are  to  meet  *  '■'  *  to  attend  on  that  business." 
Here  the  principle  of  the  council  is  endorsed,  but  the  form  is  more 
that  of  a  committee  of  the  Association.  The  next  year,  when  nothing 
had  come  of  this  action,  the  Association  referred  the  case  to  a  com- 
mittee of  three,  apparently  with  full  power  to  receive  the  Second 
Church  into  the  Association. 

The  Warren  Association,  in  1782,  in  response  to  a  request  from 
the  church  at  Harwich  for 

"advice  as  to  the  best  mode  of  proceeding  in  case  any 
Church  should  deviate  from  the  faith  and  order  of  the 
gospel  as  held  by  these  Churches : 

Voted,  We  are  of  the  opinion,  that  in  such  cases  the 
neighboring  Churches  ought  to  inform  the  deviating 
Church  of  their  uneasiness,  and  desire  a  candid  hearing ; 
if  this  is  denied,  or- if  it  be  granted,  and  satisfaction  is 
not  obtained,  they  should  withdraw  fellowship  from  said 
Church,  and  give  information  to  the  next  Association, 
who  have  a  right  to  drop  such  Church  from  this  body; 
though  we  disclaim  all  power  and  jurisdiction  over  the 
Churches." 

Here  again  we  see  the  principle  of  the  council  endorsed  by  the 
Association,  though  it  asserts  its  own  right  to  drop  a  church  from 
membership,  as  it  possessed  the  sole  right  to  admit  to  membership. 
That  same  year, 

"A  letter  was  presented  by  Elder  Barstow,  in  respect 
to  the  difficulties  subsisting  between  him  and  the  Church 
at  Sutton.  Voted,  That  we  conceive  it  is  entirely  incon- 
sistent with  the  original  design  of  this  Association  to 
interfere  in  any  such  matters." 

It  was  found,  however,  that  the  Association  could  not  prevent 
itself  from  being  involved  in  such  cases,  so  we  read  in  the  Minutes 
of  1785, 

"As  difficulties  in  the  church  at  Sutton  brought  on 
long  discussions,  without  a  possibility  of  doing  anything 
to  settle  them ;  Voted,  That  those  brethren  of  the  church, 
formerly  acknowledged  a  member  of  this  Association, 
here  present,  do  not  set  as  members  of  this  body,  nor 
anything  be  done  relative  to  the  result  of  the  councils 
which  they  have  had  on  said  difficulties ;  and  that  this 
Association  advise  both  the  contending  parties  to  unite 
in  a  mutual  council  before  our  next  yearly  meeting." 


40  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

In  1788,  this  Association  took  action  touching  three  of  the 
churches  belonging  to  it.  The  messengers  from  the  Church  at 
Woodstock  were 

"requested  to  omit  taking  a  seat  at  this  meeting,  in 
hopes  that  before  another  annual  association  their  diffi- 
culties will  be  settled." 

Two  other  churches  were  dropped  from  the  Association,  in  one 
case  the  latter  finding  the  warrant  for  its  action  "from  information 
by  a  late  council  of  churches  and  other  good  evidence."  In  general, 
the  Association  has  distinguished  between  the  dissolution  of  the 
membership  of  a  church  in  the  Association  and  the  disfellowship  of 
a  church  by  sister  churches,  the  latter  action  being  secured  normally 
through  a  council.  While  practically  the  vote  of  an  Association  to 
drop  a  church  may  be  considered  by  the  other  churches  as  denom- 
inational disfellowship,  theoretically  the  relation  of  the  expelled 
church  to  other  churches  is  not  disturbed,  as  membership  in  an 
Association  is  a  purely  voluntary  relation. 

From  the  way  in  which  the  council  came  into  Baptist  polity,  it 
is  evident  that  no  definite  date  can  be  assigned  as  the  time  when  it 
became  a  fully  recognized  institution.  In  an  appendix  there  will  be 
found  a  list  of  such  councils  before  1821  as  have  come  to  the 
writer's  attention,  and  that  incomplete  list  will  suggest  that  long 
before  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the  council  had  been 
adopted  and  developed  as  a  regular  organ  of  ecclesiastical  life. 
While  much  of  the  earlier  direct  evidence  already  adduced  shows 
clearly  that  almost  from  the  first  need  of  such  an  institution  the 
council  offered  itself  as  a  convenient  instrument  and  was  adjusting 
itself  into  its  proper  sphere,  it  is  from  indirect  evidence  that  we  are 
most  assured  that  this  was  the  case.  To  present  only  one  out  of 
numerous  illustrations,  here  is  one  from  the  Shaftsbury  Association 
Minutes  of  1791. 

"Query  from  the  church  in  Ashfield :  When  any  mat- 
ter of  difficulty  has  been  fairly  discussed  by  a  council 
from  any  sister  churches,  has  any  neighboring  church  a 
legal  right  to  demand  a  hearing  of  said  difficulty?  pro- 
vided those  justified  by  the  result  of  a  council  do  not 
request  it,  and  the  party  judged  to  be  in  the  wrong 
refuse  to  join  in  council?" 

The  significance  of  this  does  not  lie  in  the  negative  ansvv^er  which 
the  Association  gave  to  the  query,  though  that  hnplies  the  right  of 
the  council  in^  such  a  case  to  due  respect  on  the  part  of  a  neighboring 
church ;  but  in  the  assumption  of  a  relatively  obscure  rural  church 
as  early  as  1791,  that  the  council  is  the  regular  agencv  for  the  settle- 


THE  ENTRANCE  OF  THE  COUNCIL  4! 

ment  of  difficulties  in  a  Baptist  church  which  the  church  itself  seems 
unable  to  settle  in  a  way  satisfactory  to  its  own  members  and  the 
sister  churches  which  may  be  indirectly  involved  in  the  case.  This 
shows  that  by  this  time,  the  council  had  become  a  well-recognized 
institution  among  Baptists. 

In  treating  the  status  and,  more  particularly,  the  functions  of  the 
council,  we  shall  introduce  considerable  material  which  would  be 
pertinent  to  the  present  chapter.  It  will  be  sufficient  here  to  say 
merely  that  as  the  Associational  organization  became  more  system- 
atized and  the  principles  of  ecclesiastical  polity  were  more  care- 
fully and  consciously  wrought  out  in  the  constitutions  and  practices 
of  the  Associations,  we  find  that  while  the  latter  were  ever  ready 
to  serve  the  best  interests  of  the  churches,  occasionally  taking  action 
which  under  peculiar  circumstances  seemed  expedient  though 
objectionable  as  a  precedent,  they  show,  as  is  evident  from  what  we 
have  already  seen,  a  remarkable  self-restraint  in  their  relation  to  the 
coimcil.  The  early  interchange  of  the  functions  of  the  two  institu- 
tions makes  the  problem  of  their  differentiation  complicated ;  a 
priori,  one  would  suppose  that  the  Association  as  more  highly 
organized,  would  have  sidetracked  the  council  and  assumed  its 
functions.  The  reason  for  the  preservation  of  the  council  alongside 
the  Association  is  probably  to  be  found  in  the  fear  lest  the  Associa- 
tion should  become  too  dominant  and  be  transformed  into  a  consocia- 
tion or  synod,  with  legislative  and  administrative  authority  over  the 
individual  churches.  By  referring  to  councils  those  matters  which 
were  more  directly  related  to  the  churches  at  large, — as  the  ordina- 
tion and  disfellowship  of  ministers,  and  other  matters  which  involved 
the  denominational  standing  of  ministers  and  churches,  a  check  was 
placed  upon  any  tendency  in  the  Association  toward  presbyterianism. 
Yet  the  Association  still  offered  itself  as  a  regular  opportunity  for 
any  local  church  to  secure  advice  from  its  sister  churches,  so  the 
records  of  the  Associations  continue  to  be  an  important  source  of 
information  for  the  student  of  the  council  as  a  denominational 
institution.  It  is  unnecessary,  however,  for  us  to  use  further  in 
this  connection  the  material  thus  offered,  for  it  simply  corroborates 
the  fact  already  shown,  that  by  the  time  the  Baptist  churches  are 
sufficiently  numerous  to  feel  seriously  the  need  of  the  assistance  and 
protection  of  such  an  institution,  it  has  already  found  a  place  in 
their  denominational  polity ;  though  we  shall  see,  as  we  trace  its 
further  development,  that  the  distinction  between  the  functions  of 
the  Association  and  those  of  the  council  was  not  vet  determined. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

THE  STATUS  OF  THE  COUNCIL. 

In  the  preceding  chapter  we  have  traced  the  gradual  entrance  of 
the  council  into  denominational  recognition,  or  we  might  say,  the 
emergence  of  the  council  as  an  institution  through  the  application  of 
the  principles  of  fellowship  to  the  varied  conditions  in  which  the 
churches  found  themselves.  From  the  nature  of  its  origin,  the 
council  is  not  a  static  thing  and,  as  we  shall  see,  it  has  always  shown 
its  vitality  by  its  ability  to  develop  and  to  adjust  itself  to  meet 
new  conditions.  So  when  we  speak  of  the  status  of  the  council,  we 
must  recognize  that  in  some  particulars  this  will  vary  with  the 
growth  and  the  changed  relations  of  the  churches.  Yet  there  are 
some  principles  which  have  always  been  adhered  to. 

In  the  first  place,  the  council  has  ever  been  regarded  as  the 
servant,  not  the  master  of  the  churches.  As  we  have  traced  its 
introduction  into  Baptist  polity,  we  have  seen  that  it  was  not  imposed 
upon  the  churches  from  without,  but  was  called  into  service  by  them- 
selves to  perform  functions  which  the  churches  found  necessary  for 
their  own  best  welfare.  It  was  not  self-creative,  but  the  product  of 
the  growing  fellowship  among  the  churches.  Its  purpose  was 
utilitarian,  not  ecclesiastical.  It  sprang  into  being  from  the  needs  of 
the  churches,  independent,  yet  constrained  by  the  bonds  of  fellow- 
ship, and  not  from  the  impulse  of  the  denomination  to  organize  itself 
for  corporate  expression. 

Another  principle  is  very  evident  from  the  nature  of  the  origin 
of  Baptist  councils:  In  no  sense  are  they  essential  to  the  existence 
of  z  true  church  or  ministry.  The  churches  antedate  the  council 
which  was  called  into  being  by  them.  The  local  church  is  independ- 
ent and  possesses  through  its  union  with  Christ,  without  reference 
to  other  bodies  of  Christians,  a  self-sufficiency  to  live  its  own  eccle- 
siastical life,  choose  its  own  ministry,  administer  the  ordinances  and 
exercise  discipline  over  its  own  membership.  This  has  ever  been 
regarded  a  most  fundamental  principle  of  Baptist  polity. 

A  third  principle  follows  from  these,— namelv.  that  in  its  relation 
to  the  local  church,  the  council  is  advisory  only. "  The  council  exists, 
we  are  told  in  the  church  manuals,  solely  for  the  purpose  of  givincy 
advice,  with  no  authority  to  enforce  its  own  decisions.    The  Warren 

42 


THE     STATUS     OF     THE     COUNCIL  43 

Association  in  1792  shows  the  opinion  of  the  Baptists  in  its  con- 
stituency in  this  item  from  its  Minutes : 

"A  Quere.     Whether  the  judgment  or  result  of  an 
ecclesiastical  council,  is  more  than  advisory?    Answered 
unanimously  in  the  negative." 
The  previous  year,  the  principle  was  set  forth  very  lucidly  in 
the  circular  letter  of  the  Shaftsbury  Association,    (lying  partly  in 
Vermont),  which  gives  a  very  concrete  reason  why  a  church  cannot 
be    compelled    to    follow    the   advice    which    a   council    may   give. 
Though  the  letter  is  speaking  specifically  of  the  Association,  it  is  the 
Association  in  its  capacity  as  an  advisory  council,  so  the  principle 
involved  is  the  same ;   likewise,  it  applies  more  broadly  than  to  cases 
of  discipline  merely,  though  these  are  specially  referred  to. 

"Finally,  brethren,  we  consider  ourselves  to  have  no 
pozver  as  an  association  to  determine  any  cases  of  discip- 
line in  the  churches.  But  we  are  only  to  give  our  advice 
and  opinion  in  those  points,  and  intelligence  in  such  mat- 
ters as  come  within  the  limits  of  a  free  Christian  con- 
ference." *  *  =^- 

"We  are  sensible  that  some  may  object  to  this,  and 
say,  that  the  church  is  imperfect  and  liable  to  make 
wrong  judgment.  True, — but  if  we  admit  of  decisive 
councils,  to  whose  judgment  the  church  must  submit, — 
if  their  judgment  is  in  opposition  to  the  church,  and  the 
church  is  not  convinced  that  they  were  wrong, — they 
cannot  restore  the  member  rejected,  without  counter- 
acting their  own  judgments ;  and  if  they  do  it  upon  the 
judgment  of  others,  still  they  can  have  no  more  fellow- 
ship with  such  a  person  than  before.  It  appears  hence, 
that  decisive  councils  immediately  militate  against  real 
fellowship  and  gospel  union  in  the  churches.  But  coun- 
cils, for  advice  only,  in  difficult  cases,  are  useful.  In  this 
way,  the  churches  and  brethren  may  gain  light,  and  all 
their  difficulties  be  happily  settled." 

Now  while  this  principle  is  attested  historically  and  as  a  theorv 
is  maintained  consistently  as  regards  the  relation  of  the  individual 
council  tothe  specific  case  which  has  been  submitted  to  it  for  advice, 
the  council  as  an  institution,  in  its  relation  to  the  Baptist  denomina- 
tion,—or  if  any  one  prefers,  in  its  relation  to  the  fellowship  of 
Baptist  churches,— has  occupied  a  position  both  theoretically  and  his- 
torically which  cannot  be  adequately  described  merely  as  "advisory." 
We  are  interested  in  a  larger  phase  of  the  institution.  What  is  the 
status  of  this  "advisory"  council?    From  the  standpoint  of  the  local 


44  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

church  most  directly  interested  in  the  council  and  looking  only  at 
the  specific  decision  which  the  council  reaches,  it  is  true  that  the 
advice  of  that  particular  council  carries  only  so  much  weight  as 
there  is  sound  reason  in  it,  and  the  local  church  will  doubtless  govern 
itself  accordingly.  Yet  in  the  decision  of  a  council,  unless  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  latter  is  under  suspicion,  there  is  a  momentum  in  its 
impact  upon  the  consciousness  of  the  denomination  and  of  the 
local  church  as  well  that  is  not  fully  represented  by  the  mere  sound- 
ness of  the  advice  irself.  There  is  another  factor  involved.  The 
advice  is  the  advice  of  a  council,  not  that  of  an  irresponsible  group 
of  men. 

The  distinction  just  made  is  important  to  be  borne  in  mind  as 
we  continue  our  study  of  the  subject,  and  especially  because  it  in- 
volves a  different  object  of  study  from  that  which  has  presented 
itself  to  most  previous  writers  on  this  topic.  The  church  manuals 
have  been  chiefly  interested  in  showing  the  relation  of  the  local 
independent  church  to  the  specific  council  which  it  might  call,  while 
our  concern  is  rather  with  the  institution  as  such.  For  that  reason, 
as  we  consider  the  status  of  the  council,  we  turn  first,  after  these 
preliminary  remarks,  to  the  relation  of  the  council  to  the  churches 
at  large ;  then  we  will  consider  its  relation  to  the  church  or  churches 
calling  it,  and  finally  its  relation  to  its  immediate  constituency. 

I.      THE    RELATION    OF   THE    COUNCIL   TO    THE   CHURCHES    AT   LARGE. 

This  rests  upon  no  claim  of  the  council  itself  to  represent  the  out- 
side churches,  but  rather  upon  the  confidence  of  the  churches  not 
represented  that  those  which  are,  will  act  judiciously  and  in  every 
way  so  as  to  retain  the  respect  of  the  churches  at  large.  If  the 
origin  of  the  council  had  been  different  from  what  it  was,  especially 
if  it  had  come  into  being  from  the  assertion  of  the  neighboring  or 
the  larger  churches  of  the  right  to  decide  the  controversies  within 
the  local  church  or  to  determine  the  standing  of  churches  or  minis- 
ters, the  council  would  have  had  the  opposition  not  only  of  the  local 
church  but  of  the  whole  denomination  as  well.  In  other  words,  the 
council  would  never  have  found  a  place  among  American  Baptists. 
But  the  council  has  always,  when  called  in  sincerity,  been  given  its 
tasks  as  a  sacred  trust,  in  which  the  interests  of  the  larger  fellowship 
were  involved  no  less  really  than  were  those  of  the  local  church  most 
directly  concerned.  By  general  consent,  except  for  some  sporadic 
opposition,  it  became  the  settled  polity  among  Baptist  churches,  in 
the  gradual  way  which  we  have  been  tracing,  that  the  matters  which 
specially  involved  the  principle  of  fellowship,  though  they  indeed  in 
the  last  analysis  belonged  to  the  local  church,  were  to  be,  not  with- 
drawn from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  local  church,  but  first  submitted 
to  the  advice  of  sister  churches  in  council,  who  would  be  considered 


THE     STATUS     OF     THE     COUNCIL 


45 


competent  to  act  in  behalf  of  the  larger  sisterhood.  The  concrete 
illustrations  of  cases  thus  referred  will  occupy  our  attention  in  the 
next  chapter,  while  in  the  preceding  one,  the  general  nature  of  the 
relationship  of  the  council  to  the  churches  at  large  has  been  at  least 
indirectly  indicated,  so  that  little  besides  the  brief  summary  statement 
just  made  is  necessary.  The  aspects  of  the  relationship  which  may 
need  a  littlefurther  elucidation  may  be  adequately  brought  out  as  we 
consider  briefly  two  or  three  practical  problem's  which  may  seem 
naturally  to  arise  from  the  lack  of  any  close  and  formal  connection 
between  the  council  and  the  denomination  at  large,  and  which  as  a 
niatter  of  fact  have  arisen  in  the  historical  development  of  the 
institution. 

First,  what  churches  may  be  considered  competent  to  act  for  the 
denomination  so  as  properly  to  conserve  its  interests,  which  might 
suffer  at  the  hands  of  an  irresponsible  independent  church?     The 
answer  to  this  question  is,  as  made  by  the  council  in  history,  that 
in  general  a  fair  number  of  the  churches  in  the  immediate  vicinity 
mav  safely  be  entrusted  with  the  consideration  of  the  more  ordinary 
affairs  which  are  submitted  to  a  council.     The  tendency  to  follow 
the  associational  lines  as  the  normal  limits  for  the  composition  of  a 
council  _  will    come    to    our    attention    again    later ;     the    extension 
of  the  invitation  to  the  neighboring  churches  to  sit  in  the  council 
has  generally  been  considered  sufficient.    It  has  sometimes  been  the 
case  that  the  neighboring  churches  are  directly  or  indirectly  involved 
in  some  case  of  controversy  within  a  local  church.    Under  such  cir- 
cumstances, a  council  has  better  standing  before  the  denomination  if 
its  membership  includes  a  wider  range  of  churches  and  the  geo- 
graphical basis  of  selection  has  been  abandoned  altogether.     This 
will  generally  be  the  case  if  some  churches  of  wide  prominence  or 
even  individuals  who  are  held  in  especial  esteem  are  included.     An 
ex  parte  council,  in  particular,  has  occasionally  secured  a  better 
standing  because  of  such  a  composition.    A  good  illustration  of  this 
is  found  in  the  ex  parte  council  called  in  1858  at  Williamsburg, 
N.  Y.,  which  included  a  few  churches  in  the  vicinity,  but  a  majority 
from  a  distance,  among  the  delegates  being  such  prominent  Baptist 
laymen   as   Governors    Briggs   of   Massachusetts   and   Fletcher   of 
Vermont  _    Such  a  council,  reaching  as  it  did  in  this  case  a  unani- 
mous decision,  would  carry  more  weight  with  the  churches  at  large 
than  would  a  small  council  gathered  from  the  immediate  vicinity  of 
the  local  church.^    The  essential  point  is  not  the  geographical  loca- 
tion, relative  to  the  local  church,  of  the  churches  invited  in,  but  the 

^  Watchman  and  Reflector,  Aug.  5,  1858. 


^6  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

ability  of  the  churches  which  are  invited  to  give  a  fair  decision  to  the 
case  before  them. 

This  suggests  a  second  problem :  How  can  the  denomination  be 
protected  from  packed  councils  ?  The  custom  of  calling  in  the  neigh- 
boring churches  has  been  in  itself  a  partial  safeguard  against  this 
danger,  and  any  departure  from  the  geographical  rule,  especially  if 
these  churches  are  not  invited,  is  liable  to  cast  suspicion  upon  a 
council  unless  the  facts  justify  such  a  variation.  Thus  in  1845,  tbe 
Christian  Watchman  refers  to  a  council  held  at  Augusta,  Maine,  and 
impugns  its  integrity  because  the  council  was  not  composed  of  the 
pastors  and  delegates  from  churches  in  the  vicinity.-  The  next  issue 
of  the  paper,  however,  states  that  according  to  a  member  of  one  of 
the  Baptist  churches  in  the  city  where  the  council  was  held,  there 
were  good  reasons  for  inviting  some  churches  from  a  distance.  It  is 
true  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  no  less  than  in  political  and  economic 
matters,  that  publicity  is  in  itself  a  safeguard  against  fraud.  If 
it  is  known  that  a  council  is  packed  or  if  its  action  is  for  any  reason 
under  suspicion,  the  churches  at  large  are  perfectly  free  to  ignore  its 
action  altogether,  and  as  a  rule,  they  will  do  so.  The  minute  offered 
by  Dr.  E.  H.  Johnson  and  adopted  by  a  council  at  West  Greenwich, 
R.  I.,  in  1 88 1,  though  referring  specifically  to  ordination,  is  applicable 
to  all  other  actions  which  depend  upon  conciliar  approval  for  their 
acceptance  by  the  denomination. 

"When  a  council  to  examine  and  ordain  is  called  from 
churches  so  limited  in  number  or  location  as  to  raise  just 
suspicion  that  the  judgment  of  other  churches  is  evaded 
rather  than  sought,  ordination  by  such  a  council  confers 
only  a  formal  and  not  a  real  endowment,  and  does  not 
entitle  the  person  so  ordained  to  recognition  by  other 
ministers  and  churches.    In  such  cases  a  truly  representa- 
tive council  should  be  called  to  examine  the  person  so 
ordained,  and  publish  its  conclusions."^ 
The  Association  often  has  offered  an  available  opportunity  for 
united  action  on  the  part  of  the  neighboring  churches  in  any  such 
case  of  flagrant  violation  of  fairness. 

A  third  problem  arises  from  the  possibility  of  conflicts  between 
councils,  of  which  there  have  been  numerous  instances.  As  a  rule 
these  conflicts  lie  in  divergent  decisions  of  councils,  one  or  more  of 
which  is  under  suspicion  from  the  nature  of  its  composition.  In  the 
case  just  referred  to,  for  example,  a  council  by  a  tie  vote  had  refused 

'  Christian  Watchman,  Nov.  7,  1845. 
'  Watchman,  Feb.  3,  1881. 


THE     STATUS     OF     THE     COUNCIL  47 

to  ordain  a  candidate.  The  church  thereupon  called  a  second  and 
smaller  council,  which  voted  to  ordain.  There  were  other  irregu- 
larities introduced  in  the  ordination  itself  which  were  the  definite 
matter  submitted  to  a  third  council  for  action;  the  minute  passed  by 
this  cast  out  the  decision  of  the  second  council  as  being  secured 
under  conditions  which  "raised  just  suspicion  that  the  judgment  of 
other  churches  was  evaded  rather  than  sought."  If  we  were  tracing 
the  local  history  of  councils,  we  would  find  some  very  interesting 
material  connected  with  conflicting  decisions  of  various  councils, — 
packed,  mutual  and  ex  parte;  but  in  most  cases  an  unprejudiced 
mind  can  reach  a  reasonable  conclusion  as  to  the  integrity  of  the 
councils.  In  such  cases  as  are  more  complicated  and  the  justice  ot 
the  suspicions  not  so  evident,  the  method  of  solution  is  offered  by 
the  institution  itself,  as  suggested  in  the  West  Greenwich  minute 
just  quoted, — a  truly  representative  council,  like  the  Chevalier 
Bayard,  "without  fear  and  without  reproach,"  should  re-examine  the 
case,  if  necessary,  de  novo.. 

2.      THE  RELATION  OF  THE  COUNCIL  TO  THE  CHURCH  CALLING  IT. 

In  by  far  the  greater  number  of  cases,  a  council  is  called  by  a 
single  local  church,  though  there  are  not  a  few  instances  where 
two  or  more  churches  have  united  in  issuing  the  call.  This  latter 
would  be  the  normal  course  where  there  was  a  controversy  between 
two  churches  or  where  portions  of  two  churches  were  to  be  set  off 
as  a  separate  church.  Thus  in  1814,  the  churches  at  Thompson, 
Conn.,  and  Sutton,  jMass.,  issued  a  joint  letter  missive  for  the  pur- 
pose of  constituting  a  new  church  in  Dudley  (Webster),  Mass.* 
There  may  be  other  circumstances,  as  convenience  or  even  sentiment, 
which  make  a  joint  letter  missive  preferable.  In  1904,  when  a 
church  in  Oakland,  Cal.,  united  with  that  at  Oak  Park  in  calling  a 
council  for  ordination,^  some  members  of  the  council  considered 
it  an  innovation ;  but  as  early  as  1829,  the  First  Church  of  Provi- 
dence had  united  in  a  similar  call  with  the  church  at  Eastport, 
]Maine.*^  In  each  of  these  cases,  it  was  the  home  church  of  the 
candidate  united  with  that  which  he  was  to  serve  as  pastor. 

There  have  been  some  cases,  moreover,  when  councils  have  been 
called  without  the  action  of  a  local  church.  The  ex  parte  council 
would  be  the  most  obvious  illustration,  but  that  is  generally  consid- 
ered as  belonging  in  a  special  class  and  as  representing  abnormal 


*  Reding,  C.  W. — Hist.  Discourse,  SOth  Anniversary  of  Baptist  Church  of 
Webster,  Mass. 

°  Pacific  Baptist,  Nov.  2,  1904. 

"  Christian  Watchman,  May  29,  1829.  Also  records  of  the  Providence 
church. 


48  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

conditions.  In  1852,  the  Trustees  of  the  New  Hampton  (N.  H.) 
Institution  called  a  council  of  the  churches  to  consider  the  advisabil- 
ity of  making-  changes  in  its  curriculum  and  also  of  removing  the 
school  to  Vermont^  In  1875,  the  ''Centennial  Council"  was  held  at 
the  call  of  the  New  York  Baptist  Ministers'  Conference,  its  action 
in  regard  to  a  suitable  recognition  of  the  Centennial  by  a  denomina- 
tional thank-offering  being  published  as  that  taken  "by  a  council  of 
churches.''*^  In  1876,  "in  pursuance  of  a  call  signed  by  ministers 
in  Delaware  and  Pennsylvania,  a  council  convened  in  the  First  Bap- 
tist Church,  Chester,  Pa.,"  to  consider  the  formation  of  a  South 
Philadelphia  Association.^  Obviously,  these  councils  are  exceptional 
from  the  nature  of  the  business  submitted  to  them ;  but  in  each  case 
the  call  was  issued  to  the  churches  for  a  council ;  the  body,  when  it 
convened,  considered  itself  a  council ;  and  in  each  case  it  seems  to 
have  organized  itself  as  such. 

Usually,  however,  the  council  is  convened  by  a  letter  missive  sent 
by  a  local  church,  and  we  may  assume  that  such  is  the  case  as  we 
consider  its  relation  to  the  church  which  has  called  it.  There  are 
three  problems  which  have  arisen  here  in  the  history  of  the  council. 

First,  is  the  church  bound  to  follow  the  advice  of  the  council  in 
those  matters  which  have  been  submitted  to  it  ?  Obviously  from  the 
nature  of  a  local  church,  in  the  light  of  the  Baptist  conception  of  its 
independence,  there  can  be  no  compulsion  behind  the  advice  which 
may  be  given.  W'hen  we  look  at  the  council  in  the  light  of  its 
relation  to  the  denomination,  however,  we  find  that  as  an  institution 
the  council  carries  with  its  advice  a  strong  moral  force.  As  the 
council  was  called  into  being  by  the  spirit  of  fellowship,  it  has  usually 
been  considered  a  breach  of  fellowship  for  a  church  not  to  follow  its 
advice  in  matters  submitted  to  it,  unless  suspicion  has  been  cast  upon 
its  fairness.  This  principle  is  attested  again  and  again  by  the  recog- 
nition of  the  action  of  councils  by  the  denomination  through  other 
councils.  Associations,  and  in  other  ways.  It  is  the  matter  of  fellow- 
ship which  is  involved,  however,  not  the  ultimate  right  of  the  church 
to  decide  matters  for  itself,  so  far  as  they  concern  the  local  church 
only. 

Another  question  that  has  arisen  concerns  the  propriety  of  the 
representation  in  the  council  of  the  church  issuing  the  call.  The 
practice  has  not  been  uniform  in  regard  to  the  matter,  though  often 
delegates  from  the  church  seeking  advice  have  sat  in  the  council. 
The  propriety  of  such  delegates  voting  has  always  been  seriously 


Watchman  &  Reflector,  May  13,  1852. 
'  Report  of  the  Joint  Committee  of  the  Centennial  Council. 
'  Cook,  R.  B. — The  Earlj^  and  Later  Delaware  Baptists,  p.  132. 


THE     STATUS     OF     THE     COUNCIL 


49 


questioned,  and  for  them  to  vote,  if  that  would  decide  the  matter  at 
issue,  would  impair  and  probably  vitiate  the  council's  action  in  the 
eyes  of  the  churches  at  large.  The  delegates  from  the  local  church 
have  sometimes  been  considered  a  committee  from  the  local  church 
to  present  the  business  to  the  council  and  in  general  to  look  out  for 
the  interests  of  the  local  body.  Thus  when  the  Wallingford,  Vt., 
church  called  a  council  in  1803  to  consider  the  advisability  of 
ordaining  a  deacon,  it  "voted  that  Elder  Green  act  with  the  council 
in  behalf  of  the  church  and  voted  that  Colburn  Preston  serve  as  a 
committee  to  answer  in  behalf  of  the  church."^''  At  recent  councils 
which  the  writer  has  attended,  however,  the  delegates  of  the  church 
calling  the  council  have  not  been  distinguished  from  those  of  other 
churches. 

A  third  question  which  has  arisen,  involving  the  relation  of  the 
council  to  the  church  calling  it,  is,  Can  a -council  enlarge  itself? 
This  has  considerable  vehemence  of  argument  and  perhaps  the  more 
consistent  theory  on  the  side  of  a  negative  answer,  while  on  the 
other  side  are  a  multitude  of  facts, — that  is,  precedents. 

Says  a  reviewer,  evidently  a  Baptist,  in  the  "Christian  Review" 
of  June,  1841, — 

"How  often  have  we  seen  councils,  after  being  assem- 
bled, proceed  to  vote  that  certain  ministers  accidentally 
present  be  invited  to  take  a  seat  with  them  and  share  in 
their  deliberations.  But  how  preposterous.  An  ecclesi- 
astical council  originates  in  the  churches,  who  have  sent 
their  delegates,  and  therefore  cannot  be  enlarged  or 
diminished  by  its  own  action.  They  have  no  more  right 
to  constitute  other  members  than  the  General  Court, 
when  in  session,  have  to  vote  that  certain  spectators  in 
the  lobby,  be  part  and  parcel  of  our  Legislature.  That 
political  body  consists  of  exactly  so  many  delegates  as 
the  people  send,  and  no  more.  The  power  of  enlarge- 
ment lies  not  in  them.  The  same  is  true  of  the  ecclesi- 
astical body  of  which  we  are  speaking." 

In  a  similar  strain  runs  the  "Star  Book"  of  Dr.  E.  T.  Hiscox, 
which  has  carried  great  weight  in  the  denominational  counsels : 

"A  Council  when  organized  can  neither  increase  nor 
diminish  the  number  of  its  members.  Its  composition  is 
formed  by  those  who  called  it,  and  cannot  be  changed  by 
any  other  authority.     For  that  reason  it  cannot  admit 


"  Archibald,  S.  H.— Hist.  Sketch  of  the  First  Hundred  Years  of  the  Bap- 
tist Church  of  Wallingford,  Vt. 


50  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

Other  persons  to  membership,  nor  can  it  exclude  any  of 
those  who  have  been  called  and  appointed  to  consti- 
tute it." 

The  fact  remains,  however,  that  almost  from  the  beginning  coun- 
cils have  enlarged  themselves,  usually,  it  must  be  acknowledged,  out 
of  courtesy  to  ministerial  brethren  present.  The  earliest  specific  case 
which  has  come  to  the  writer's  attention  was  at  Thompson,  Conn., 
in  1798,  when  it  was  voted  to  invite  the  Rev.  Daniel  Dow  and 
Deacon  Thomas  Dike  of  the  Congregational  Church  in  the  town  to 
sit  in  the  council,  and  it  is  mentioned  that  the  former  took  an  active 
part  in  the  proceedings.^^  Similar  instances  of  the  enlargement  of  a 
council  by  its  own  vote  occurred  in  Exeter,  N.  H.,  in  1800;  in  Cort- 
land, N.  Y.,  in  1801 ;  in  Wallingford,  Vt.,  in  1803  (and  this,  after 
the  church  had  formally  accepted  as  a  council  the  brethren  who  had 
been  sent  by  the  churches)  ;  in  Dudley  (Webster),  Mass.,  in  1814; 
in  Taunton,  in  1819;  and  in  numerous  other  cases  up  to  the  present 
time.  It  is  obvious  that  there  must  be  no  suspicion  of  unfairness  in 
any  such  enlargement,  which  has  generally  been  by  unanimous 
consent.^- 

3.      THE  RELATION  OF  THE  COUNCIL  TO  ITS  CONSTITUENT  CHURCHES. 

We  have  noted  that  other  bodies  than  churches  may  issue  a  call 
for  a  council ;  it  is  also  possible  for  such  a  call  to  be  sent  to  other 
bodies  than  churches.  Thus  the  Glenside  (Pa.)  Baptist  Church 
recently  issued  a  call  to  the  churches  of  the  North  Philadelphia  Asso- 
ciation, seven  other  churches,  the  Pennsylvania  Baptist  State  Mission 
Society  and  the  Baptist  City  Mission  Society  of  Philadelphia.  In  the 
earlier  days,  as  we  have  seen,  the  functions  now  carried  on  by  coun- 
cils were  largely  performed  by  individual  ministers  or  several  of 
them,  so  it  is  only  natural  that  it  has  remained  customary,  in  calling 
a  council,  sometimes  to  include  individual  ministers  in  addition  to  the 


"  Pinkham,  N.  J. — "Discourse  delivered  at  the  One  Hundredth  Anniver- 
sary of  the  Organization  of  the  Baptist  Church,  Thompson,  Conn." 

"At  a  recent  council  which  the  writer  attended,  after  the  council  had 
agreed  without  dissent  that  certain  persons  be  admitted  to  its  membership, 
the  point  was  raised  that  since  the  council  had  done  what,  according  to 
Hiscox,  a  council  could  not  do,  the  enlarged  body  was  not  the  council  to 
which  the  case  in  hand  had  been  referred,  and  so  could  not  sit  in  judgment 
upon  it.  The  point  was  overruled  by  the  Moderator ;  to  have  allowed  it 
would  have  been  to  discredit  hundreds  of  Baptist  councils  whose  decisions 
have  been  accepted  in  good  faith.  The  delegates  from  the  church  which 
called  the  council  had  made  no  protest.  There  had  been  opportunity  earlier 
to  raise  objection,  when  the  enlargement  was  proposed,  or,  if  the  objection 
had  been  seriously  meant,  there  was  still  opportunity  to  ask  for  a  reconsidera- 
tion of  the  vote  by  which  the  enlargement  had  been  effected. 


THE     STATUS     OF     THE     COUNCIL 


5^ 


churches.  So,  too,  there  has  occasionally  been  a  council  composed 
only  of  ministers,  as  for  example,  one  for  deposition  which  met  in 
Boston  in  1904,  at  the  call  of  the  West  Medford  Church,  But  in 
general,  the  persons  sitting  in  a  council  are  there  as  messengers  of 
the  churches  of  which  they  are  members. 

The  main  question  which  arises  concerning  the  relation  of  the 
council  to  its  constituent  churches  may  be  considered  chiefly  an 
academic  one.  Are  the  churches  really  represented  in  such  a 
council?  The  question  harks  back  to  a  more  fundamental  one, — 
Can  a  Baptist  church  be  represented  or  in  any  way  delegate  its 
powers? — and  on  this  subject  the  doctors  disagree.  Dr.  Francis 
Wayland,  whose  opinions  always  carry  great  weight,  presents  a 
strong  argum.ent  in  which  he  denies  the  possibility  "that  a  church  of 
Christ  can  be  in  any  proper  and  legitimate  sense  represented.''^^  Dr. 
E.  T.  Hiscox  takes  a  similar  position,  which  he  states  even  more 
emphatically  :^* 

"A  Baptist  church  cannot  represent  itself  or  be  repre- 
sented in  any  other  organization  whatever.  Let  this  be 
said  plainly  and  with  emphasis.  A  Baptist  church  can 
send  messengers  to  other  churches  and  to  other  associa- 
tions by  letters  or  messengers,  or  both,  but  to  appoint 
delegates  or  representatives  to  act  for  them  with  execu- 
tive authority  and  to  bind  them  by  such  action,  would  be 
utterly  subversive  of  their  polity,  and  would  place  them 
at  once  under  a  de  facto  Presbyterian  or  prelatical  gov- 
ernment. For  if  some  convention  could  be  constructed  as 
a  representative  body,  composed  of  duly  accredited  dele- 
gates, with  power  to  act  for  the  churches,  then  such  con- 
vention would  constitute  an  ecclesiastical  body  superior 
in  authority  to  the  individual  churches,  with  power  to 
legislate  for  them  and  decree  penalties  for  dissent." 

Both  these  men  make  the  apparent  mistake  of  confusing  repre- 
sentation or  the  delegation  of  powers  with  the  absolute  surrender 
of  all  the.  rights  of  the  individual  church.  It  by  no  means  follows 
that  because  a  representative  body  has  been  given  certain  power 
to  act  for  the  churches,  it  thereby  becomes  possessed  "with  power 
to  legislate  for  them  and  decree  penalties  for  dissent."  As  Dr.  J.  B. 
Jeter  pointed  out  long  ago  in  his  review  of  Dr.  Wayland's  book, 
while  "for  certain  purposes  churches  cannot  be  properly  repre- 
sented,"   yet    "representatives   may    be    invested    wnth    limited    and 


Notes  on  the  Principles  and  Practices  of  Baptist  Churclies,  p.  181. 
Watchman,  Dec.  11,  1890. 


5-  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

Strictly  defined  powers."^^  The  whole  development  of  the  council  as 
an  institution  has  been  based  on  the  assumption  that  in  matters  per- 
taining to  fellowship,  the  council  represented  the  churches  in  a  very 
true  sense,  though  of  course  with  no  legislative  functions.  The 
common  language  of  the  letters  missive  and  the  records  of  the 
councils  bear  out  this  interpretation.  The  stately  and  formal  lan- 
guage of  Thomas  Baldwin,  (whose  obiter  dicta  are  of  no  little  weight 
in  matters  pertaining  to  Baptist  polity),  at  the  recognition  of  the 
Baptist  Church  in  Charlestown,  in  1801,  is  of  some  value  in  revealing 
the  idea  of  a  leading  Boston  Baptist  one  hundred  years  ago  as  to  the 
relation  of  a  council  to  its  constituent  churches.^*' 

"Dearly  Beloved  in  the  Lord :  The  Churches  now 
convened  agreeably  to  your  request,  by  their  ministers 
and  messengers,  having  fully  examined  the  papers  you 
have  laid  before  them,  containing  an  account  of  all  your 
proceedings  relative  to  your  becoming  a  distinct  visible 
church ;  have  directed  me  in  their  behalf  to  inform  you, 
that  they  are  fully  satisfied  with  your  proceedings,  and 
consider  them  to  have  been  regular  and  according  to  the 
gospel." 

Dr.  Baldwin  would  hardly  have  used  such  language  unless  he 
considered  that  in  a  very  real  sense  the  messengers  in  the  council 
represented  the  churches  which  had  sent  them,  though  he  by  no 
means  thought  that  thereby  those  messengers  had  any  "power  to 
legislate  for  them  and  decree  penalties  for  dissent,"  to  use  Dr. 
Hiscox's  phrase.  The  language  of  Dr.  Baldwin  is  not  exceptional, 
for  other  similar  phrases  are  found  in  other  recorded  addresses  on 
such  occasions  and  in  the  instructing  votes  of  the  councils  them- 
selves. 

In  1819,  the  Worcester  Baptist  Association  expressed  its  idea  as 
to  the  possibility  of  a  Baptist  church  being  represented,  in  the 
Preamble  to  its  Constitution  adopted  that  year : 

'  "We  believe  that  every  visible  Church  of  Christ  is 
independent  of  all  others,  with  respect  to  the  admission 
and  discipline  of  its  members,  and  the  choice  of  its 
Officers.  As  Churches  are  thus  independent,  they,  like  all 
other  independent  bodies,  have  a  right  to  delegate  a  part 
of  their  powers,  when,  in  their  opinion,  such  delegation 
will  promote  their  benefit,  and  the  general  cause  of  God, 
without  contravening  any  law  of  Christ." 


"Christian  Review,  April,  1857. 

"  Printed  in  a  pamphlet  entitled  "Sacred  Performances  at  the  Dedication 
of  the  Baptist  Meeting-House  in  Charlestown,  May  12,  1801." 


THE     STATUS     OF     THE     COUNCIL 


53 


Yet  after  all,  as  already  said,  the  question  is  chiefly  an  academic 
one ;  its  influence  has  been  largely  confined  to  the  wording  of  reso- 
lutions and  has  very  little  affected  the  development  of  the  Council.^^ 

4.      THE  EX  PARTE  COUNCIL. 

The  ex  parte  council  has  well  been  termed  the  "safetv-valve" 
of  the  congregational  polity  (independency).  It  finds  its  place  in 
those  cases  of  controversy  where  one  of  the  parties  unreasonably  re- 
fuses to  join  in  such  measures  as  are  necessary  to  secure  a  mutual 
council.  If  the  case  lies  between  two  churches,  it  is  within  the 
province  of  either  to  call  a  council  of  its  sister  churches  to  advise 
it  in  the  premises,  so  no  special  principle  is  involved  other  than  that 
in  every  council.  It  is  obvious,  however,  that  in  such  cases  of 
controversy  between  churches,  a  mutual  council  will  carry  greater 
weight  with  the  churches  at  large.  In  a  narrower  sense,  the  term 
ex  parte  has  been  applied  to  a  council  which  is  called  by  a  minority 
of  a  church,  presumably  because  it  believes  that  it  has  been  deprived 
of  its  just  rights  by  the  action  of  the  majority.  The  right  of  such 
a  council  to  exist  has  been  called  in  question,  and  for  that  reason, 
if  for  no  other,  it  demands  some  special  consideration  in  our  study 
of  the  status  of  the  council  as  an  institution. 

Just  when  the  first  ex  parte  council,  in  this  narrower  meaning, 
was  held  among  American  Baptists,  the  researches  of  the  present 
writer  have  been  unable  to  discover;  the  theory  of  the  ex  parte 
council  found  expression  relatively  early,  and  the  Congregational 
churches  had  found  this  species  serviceable  as  early  as  1669.^*  The 
earliest  date  of  a  Baptist  ex  parte  council  for  which  the  writer  has 
found  definite  evidence  is  1821,  when  one  was  held  in  connection 
with  troubles  in  the  church  at  Ovid,  N.  Y,"     That  same  year,  a 

"An  interesting  illustration  of  this  is  found  in  the  logomachy  recorded 
in  the  history  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Springfield  (111.)  Baptist  Associa- 
tion.    In  the  Constitution  adopted  in  1837  we  find  the  following: 

Art.  2.  "This  body  shall  be  composed  of  churches  embracing  the  fol- 
lowing" (doctrines).  ...  In  1850,  this  was  amended  so  that  it  read,  "This 
body  shall  be  composed  of  messengers  from  churches  embracing  .  .  ."  etc. 
In  1863,  the  Constitution  was  revised  and  we  read  in  the  ist  Article,  "This 
Association  shall  be  composed  of  messengers,  who  shall  be  members  of,  and 
appointed  by  the  churches  which  they  represent."  It  is  noticeable  that  there 
is  an  advance  in  the  language  of  1863  over  that  of  1850,  although  it  does  not 
recognize  the  presence  of  the  churches  in  the  Association  so  explicitly  as  had 
the  original  Constitution.  The  actual  work  of  the  Springfield  Association 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  affected  in  the  least  by  these  changes  in  phrase- 
ology. 

"Dexter,  "Congregationalism,"  p.  550. 

"*  Halsey,  "Hist,  of  the  Seneca  Bap.  Assoc,"  p.  165  sq. 


54  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

query  was  addressed  to  the  Leyden  Association,  in  Vermont  and 
^Massachusetts,  by  the  church  at  Wardsboro' : 

"Is  it  expedient,  when  any  church  is  laboring  with  an 
offender,  that  he  should  call  brethren  from  other 
churches,  without  request  from  the  church ;  and  have 
those  brethren  so  called,  or  any  brother  just  cause  to  be 
offended,  if  the  church,  dealing  with  the  offender,  should 
not  vote  them  a  seat  with  the  church  ?" 
The  query  was  referred  to  a  committee,  and  the  answer  finally 
entered  in  the  Minutes : 

"As  the  church  is  an  independent  body,  we  answer 
in  the  negative." 
The  question  is  awkwardly  framed  and,  as  punctuated,  forms 
one  question,  to  which  the  Association  gave  one  answer.  To  the 
latter  part  of  the  query  only  one  answer  could  be  given,  for  the 
question  implies  the  possible  right  of  an  ex  parte  council  to  demand, 
on  penalty  of  the  severance  of  fellowship,  (for  that  lies  potentially  in 
the  idea  of  a  just  cause  of  offense),  that  the  church  in  question 
should  admit  the  council  to  its  own  deliberations  over  a  case  of 
discipline.  More  likely  the  intent  of  the  latter  part  of  the  query  w^as 
to  ascertain  whether  it  was  a  breach  of  fellowship  for  the  church 
to  refuse  to  participate  in  a  regularly  assembled  ex  parte  council, 
thus  making  it  a  mutual  body.-^  The  negative  answer  of  the  Asso- 
ciation, under  either  interpretation  of  the  latter  part  of  the  query, 
cannot  be  taken  as  a  negative  answer  to  the  first  part  of  the  query 
taken  by  itself, — that  is,  a  denial  of  the  expediency  of  an  ex  parte 
council. 

This  same  Leyden  Association,  in  1813,  had  been  asked  to  giv^e 
its  opinion  whether  it  was  "gospel-wise  and  tending  to  increase  the 
fellowship  of  our  churches,"  for  an  "ex  party  (sie)  council  to  decide 
upon  a  matter  of  difficulty  which  a  mutual  council  had  previously 
decided  upon,  without  giving  any  notice  to  the  mutual  council."  The 
answer  which  a  committee  of  five  elders  reported  back  to  the  Asso- 
ciation is  rather  non-committal,  but  it  is  perhaps  worth  presenting 
here. 

"We  say  nothing  about  the  conduct  of  councils  being 
gospel-wise,  as  there  is  no  rule  in  the  gospel  respecting 
them ;   no  church  ought  to  feel  their  fellowship  lessened 
on  account  of  advice  given  or  received,  unless  there  is 
evidence  of  corruption." 

'"  Numerous  instances  might  be  cited  when  an  ex  parte  council  has  been 
transformed  into  a  mutual  one  by  the  acceptance  b}'  the  other  party  of  an 
invitation  to  join  in  the  deliberations.     E.  g.,  at  Kingsbury,  N.  Y.,  in  1827. 


THE     STATUS     OF     THE     COUNCIL  Cij 

Our  immediate  interest  lies  rather  in  the  query  itself,  which  sug- 
gests that  such  an  ex  parte  council  had  been  actually  held  or  at  least 
proposed.  To  go  back  still  farther,  it  is  probable  that  the  councils 
referred  to  in  the  vote  of  the  Warren  Association,  in  1785,  as  having 
been  held  on  the  difficulties  in  the  Sutton  church,  were  ex  parte,  as 
the  ccntendmg  parties  are  advised  to  unite  in  a  mutual  council.-^ 

The  principle  of  the  ex  parte  council,  however,  had  found  expres- 
sion as  early  as  1756,  in  the  Charleston  Association  in  South  Caro- 
lina.   That  year,  in  response  to  this  query, -- 

"Whether  all  matters  debated  in  a  church  are  to  be 
determined  by  plurality  of  voices,  and  that  determination 
final,  though  it  grieve  the  conscience  of  some?" 

the  answer  was  given : 

"No  church  or  majority  of  a  church,  has  power  to 
bind  the  conscience;  if  therefore  the  majority  should 
introduce  errors  subversive  of  the  peace  of  the  church, 
and  wound  the  consciences  of  the  brethren,  the  minority 
may,  after  all  proper  methods  to  reclaim  the  rest  by  calm 
reasoning,  by  calling  in  the  assistance  of  the  other 
churches,  and  by  referring  the  matter  tO'  the  Association, 
should  these  prove  ineffectual,  be  received  as  the  church, 
and  the  majority  disowned." 

There  has  been  not  a  little  written  both  for  and  against  the  pro- 
priety of  the  ex  parte  council ;  but  no  simpler,  yet  comprehensive 
statement  concerning  it  has  been  made  than  that  just  quoted,  which 
has  the  added  endorsement  of  the  actual  practice  of  the  Baptist 
churches  at  large.  It  is  unfortunate  that  there  should  ever  be  need 
of  such  a  council.  To  quote  from  an  editorial  in  the  Watchman  of 
Jan.  18,  1877, — 

"The  calling  of  an  ex  parte  uniformly  comes  from  the 
refusal  of  a  mutual  council ;  and  it  is  incomprehensible 
to  us  why  a  church  should  ever  refuse  to  unite  in  calling 
a  mutual  council." 

The  refusal  of  the  majority  of  a  church  to  call  a  mutual  council 
is  not  in  itself  evidence  of  injustice  on  their  part;  but  if  the  earlier 
disturbing  action  of  the  majority  is  at  all  questionable,  (even  if  it  fol- 
lows extreme  improprieties  on  the  part  of  the  minority),  then  their 
refusal  to  join  in  a  mutual  council  to  consider  all  the  difficulties 
makes   an   appeal  to   an  ex   parte   council  prima   facie  justifiable. 


yi  p.  39. 

"  Furman  Wood.     "Hist,  of  the  Charleston  Assoc,"  p.  36. 


56  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

Churches  have  usually  sent  delegates  to  participate  in  such  councils, 
and  they  have  been  efificient  in  solving  many  difficult  cases.  When 
they  have  failed,  it  has  almost  always  been  because  they  have  been 
not  only  ex  parte  but  also  packed  councils.  An  ex  parte  council,  even 
more  scrupulously  than  the  mutual,  must  avoid  all  appearance  of 
being  unfairly  constituted ;  its  integrity  in  composition  and  in  its 
action  must  be  above  suspicion.  Where  this  has  been  the  case,  the 
ex  parte  council  has  a  position  established  historically  in  American 
Baptist  polity. 

5.      OPPOSITION    TO   THE    COUNCIL. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  there  have  always  been  some  who  have 
opposed  the  council  as  an  institution,  in  toto,  and  still  more  who  have 
resisted  certain  tendencies  in  its  development.  In  general,  the  atti- 
tude toward  the  council  is  dependent  upon  one's  conception  of  church 
independency.  The  more  one  conceives  of  the  life  of  the  local  church 
as  self-centered,  with  no  inter-church  obligations,  with  all  its  func- 
tions as  a  church  confined  within  its  own  membership,  the  less  favor 
will  he  have  for  the  council.  But  as  the  social  obligations  of  the 
individual  Christian  are  to-day  recognized  in  addition  to  the  need 
of  such  soul-culture  as  Bunyan  depicted  in  his  "Pilgrim's  Progress,'' 
so  the  denominational  consciousness  of  American  Baptists  has  been 
alive  more  and  more  to  the  mutual  obligations  of  the  churches.  The 
particularist,  however,  has  been  in  evidence,  and  the  council  has  from 
time  to  time  given  him  opportunity  to  put  in  his  plea  for  absolute 
independence.  One  of  the  strongest  attacks  upon  the  council  and  its 
very  right  to  exist  is  to  be  found  in  John  G.  Stearns'  book,  published 
in  1832,  entitled  "The  Primitive  Church :  Its  Organization  and 
Government;  etc."  In  Chapter  8,  which  is  entitled  "Remarks  on 
Councils,"  he  says : 

"The  practice  of  calling  councils,  to  decide  on  mat- 
ters of  difficulty,  and  in  other  cases  relating  to  the  gov- 
ernment of  churches,  has  become  quite  common  among 
Baptists.  *  *  *  I  shall  undertake  to  show  that  this  is 
departing  widely  from  the  principles  of  church  govern- 
ment, as  laid  down  in  the  New  Testament,  and  acknowl- 
edged by  every  regular  Baptist  Church." 

Very  correctly,  Mr.  Stearns  says  of  the  council  of  Acts  15, — "It 
was  the  meeting  only  of  an  individual  church,  properly  a  church 
meeting."  There  is  a  certain  unconscious  humor  in  his  question, 
in  speaking  of  Christ's  instructions  in  Matthew  18, — "Why  did  he 
not  add.  If  the  church  are  not  agreed,  appeal  to  a  council?"  Mr. 
Steains  had  such  an  advanced  conception  of  the  rights  of  inde- 


THE     STATUS     OF     THE     COUNCIL  57 

pendency  that  he  asserted  that  if  a  church  even  consents  to  unite 
with  a  disaffected  minority  in  calUng  a  mutual  council, — 

"In  doing  this,  the  church  give  up  their  independ- 
ence, and  actually  acknowledge  the  existence  of  a  higher 
court." 
It  is  evident  that  Air.  Stearns  confused  the  majority  of  a  church 
with  the  church  itself.    Very  few  Baptists  have  gone  to  the  extreme 
in  their  opposition  to  the  council  that  this  book  manifests,  but,  to 
continue  the  quotation  from  the  editorial  of  the  Watchman, — 
"The  opinion  seems  to  be  widely  prevalent  that  for 
a  church  to  submit  its  proceedings  to  the  advice  of  a 
council,  is  to  derogate  some  way  from  its  independence. 
A  very  strange  apprehension ;    for  a  council  can  only 
advise,  leaving  the  church  free  to  accept  or  decline  the 
advice  offered.     To  ask  counsel  of  another  invests  him 
with  no  authority,  and  the  asking  implies  no  unworthy 
concession.  *  *  *  To    assume    that    the    decision    of    a 
church  majority  must  not  be  questioned,  is  to  assert  not 
independence,  but  infallibility." 


CHAPTER   V. 

THE   FUNCTIONS   OF   THE  COUNCIL. 

Councils  may  be  called  to  consider  whatever  matters  the  church 
or  others  issuing  the  call  desire  to  submit  to  them ;  but  the  most 
usual  purposes  for  which  they  are  summoned  are  connected  with  the 
standing  of  churches  or  ministers,  the  conservation  of  peace,  and  the 
enlightenment  of  a  church  or  churches  in  matters  pertaining  to  the 
local  or  general  denominational  welfare.  It  may  be  objected  that 
the  sole  function  of  the  council  is  to  give  advice  in  such  cases  as  are 
brought  before  it,  and  as  that  has  already  been  said,  a  chapter  on 
"The  Functions  of  the  Council"  is  an  impertinence.  Again  atten- 
tion must  be  called  to  the  distinction  which  we  have  been  making 
between  an  individual  council  and  the  institution  in  its  historical 
relation  to  the  Baptist  churches.  Strictly  speaking,  an  individual 
council  has  but  one  essential  function,  the  giving  of  advice ;  but  the 
council  as  an  advice-giving  institution  has  numerous  functions  and 
it  is  with  these  that  we  shall  now  be  more  particularly  concerned. 
As,  however,  from  the  relation  of  the  council  to  the  denomination,  its 
advice  in  certain  matters  carries  with  it,  by  custom  and  general 
consent,  the  presumption,  unless  the  integrity  of  the  council  is 
assailed,  that  the  churches  at  large  will  accept  its  decision,  the 
council  has  sometimes  felt  warranted  in  participating  itself  in  the 
action  which  it  has  advised.  This  co-operation  of  the  council  will 
also  call  for  some  attention. 

I.      THE    CONSTITUTION    AND    RECOGNITION    OF    CHURCHES. 

In  the  early  years,  the  organization  of  a  church  was  a  simple 
affair,  though  the  presence  of  a  minister  was  considered  advisable.^ 
Morgan  Edwards  even  held  that  there  must  be  one  minister  present. 


'It  might  be  simply  by  the  uniting  in  church  covenant  of  qualified  persons, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  ist  Bap.  Church,  Haverhill,  Mass.,  whose  record  reads : 
"The  9th  day  of  May,  1765,  we  whose  names  are  first  affixed  to  the  covenant 
which  is  here  inserted,  after  solemn  fasting  and  prayer,  mutually  agreed  to 
walk  in  gospel  order  together,  having  been  before  baptized  by  immersion,  but 
not  joined  to  any  church." 

58 


THE     FUNCTIONS     OF    THE     COUNCIL 


59 


though  that  was  not  involved  in  his  definition  of  a  particular  church, 
which  well  expresses  the  typical  Baptist  view  :- 

"It  is  a  company  of  persons  called  by  the  gospel,  and 
statedly   meeting  in  one  place   for   the  exercise  of   the 
Christian  religion ;   who  are  so  confederate  among  them- 
selves as  to  be  one  body,  distinct  from  all  other  bodies  of 
the  like  or  different  sort ;  and  so  impowered  and  author- 
ized, as  to  be  sufificient  of  themselves  to  manage  their 
own  affairs,  so  as  to  obtain  the  end  of  a  church." 
Some  of  the  pastors  who  went  on  occasional  or  frequent  evan- 
gelistic tours  from  time  to  time  organized  into  churches,  to  which 
they  gave  formal  recognition,  the  people  whom  they  gathered  to- 
gether, some  of  whom  they  may  themselves  have  baptized.     Abel 
Morgan  of  Philadelphia,  Shubael  Stearns  and  Daniel  Marshall  in 
Virginia,  and  later,  Hezekiah  Smith,  in  New  Hampshire  and  Maine, 
were  prominent  among  those  who  were  active  in  this  work.     More 
often,  an  individual  church  would  sanction  the  separation  of  some 
of  its  members  and   their   organization   into   a  new  church.     The 
Kittery  case  already  referred  to  is  probably  the  earliest  and  a  verv 
typical  example.    There  grew  up,  however,  the  feeling  that  a  more 
formal  recognition  should  be  secured,  though  it  was  not  considered 
absolutely  essential.    We  have  already  noted  a  few  instances,  as  that 
at  Cape  May  Court  House,  in  171 2,  where  churches  sought  recogni- 
tion  through  the  approval  of  councils.     In   1767,   the   church  at 
Thompson,  Conn.,  dismissed  some  of  its  members  who  were  living 
at  Royalston,  Mass.,  that  they,  with  some  other  Baptists,  might  form 
a  church  there.    In  a  statement  at  the  beginning  of  their  records  we 
read  :^ 

"After  being  repeatedly  disappointed  in  respect  to 
obtaining  ecclesiastical  assistance  from  abroad,  the 
brethren  unanimously  resolved  to  form  themselves  into 
a  church." 

This  reveals  the  consciousness  that  recognition,  doubtless  through 
a  council  or  at  least  through  the  approval  of  neighboring  pastors, 

""Customs  of  Primitive  Churches,"  Prop.  III.  In  Prop.  IV.,  Edwards 
gives  what  he  considers  an  orderly  procedure  in  the  constitution  of  a  church, 
though  he  would  not  insist  that  all  of  the  details  were  essential.  It  includes, 
among  other  things,  the  presence  of  at  least  one  minister,  fasting,  an  examin- 
ation into  the  qualifications  of  those  who  wish  to  become  members,  resulting 
in  satisfaction  with  their  faith  and  that  they  have  been  duly  baptized,  hav- 
ing had  hands  laid  on  them ;  they  then  sign  the  covenant  and  are  pronounced 
a  church.  _  After  prayer,  they  give  each  other  the  right  hand  of  fellowship 
and  the  kiss  of  charity. 

'Minutes  of  the  Wendell  Assoc,  1854. 


6o  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

was  highly  desirable,  but  not  absolutely  necessary  for  the  existence 
of  a  true  church. 

As  churches  began  to  multiply  and  to  be  formed  in  closer  prox- 
imity to  one  another,  it  very  soon  became  the  general  rule  to  seek 
the  advice  of  a  council  in  their  organization.  The  function  of  the 
council  has  been  considered  one  of  "constitution"  or  of  "recogni- 
tion." The  former  designation  is  more  closely  connected  with  the 
idea  that  a  formal  declaration,  by  a  minister  or  other  representative 
of  the  sister  churches,  that  the  body  of  believers  is  a  church  of 
Christ,  is  much  more  orderlv  if  not  almost  essential.  Recognition 
is  rather  the  expression  of  the  fellowship  of  the  sister  churches.  In 
some  cases  churches  have  had  no  other  recognition  than  their  admis- 
sion into  an  Association,  though  it  is  more  generally  the  custom 
for  an  Association  to  admit  no  church  till  it  has  been  recognized  by  a 
council. 

The  council  acts,  theoretically,  for  the  churches  represented  in  it, 
but  the  language  of  the  records  usually  makes  the  recognition  or 
constitution  the  act  of  the  council.  In  1795,  a  single  neighboring 
church  was  called  in  council  at  Venice,  N.  Y.,  but  we  read  that  it 
was  "the  council"  which  gave  fellowship.**  In  1805,  a  council  met  at 
Sedgwick,  Me.,  which  "constituted"  as  a  Baptist  church  a  former 
Congregational  church  which,  with  its  pastor,  had  gone  over  as  a 
body  to  Baptist  views.^ 

Councils  called  to  recognize  churches  have  not  always  considered 
their  tasks  merely  perfunctory,  for  in  not  a  few  instances  they  have 
refused  to  give  the  recognition  asked  for.  Sometimes  this  has  been 
because  a  factious  minority  of  a  church  have  sought  recognition  as 
a  new  organization,  or  because  the  location  of  the  new  church  would 
interfere  with  the  growth  of  a  church  already  established.  Thus  in 
January,  1796,  a  council  which  met  at  Stephentown,  N.  Y.,  objected 
to  the  constitution  of  a  church  there  "on  account  of  nearness  to  the 
Hancock  church  and  the  fact  that  some  members  were  not  clear  in 
their  relation  to  former  membership  in  neighboring  churches."''  A 
second  council,  consisting  of  the  same  brethren,  in  June  of  the  same 
year,  voted  to  recognize  a  church  there.  Occasionally  a  council  has 
advised  the  postponement  of  the  organization  of  a  church  till  there 
should  be  more  visible  signs  of  strength ;  such  was  the  action  taken 
by  a  council  in  1801,  which  advised  against  setting  off  a  part  of  the 


*Hist.  of  the  ist  Bap.  Church  of  Romuhis  (N.  Y.) 

''Mills,  R.   C. — "Historical  Discourse — 50th     Annivei 
rch"  (Salem.  Mass.) 

"Hist,  and  Manual  of  First  Bap.  Church,  Stephentown,  N.  Y. 


''Mills,  R.   C. — "Historical  Discourse — 50th     Anniversary     of     ist     Bap. 
Church"  (Salem.  Mass.) 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  6 1 

Wallingford,  Vt.,  Church  as  a  new  church  in  Mt.  Holly ;  three  years 
later,  another  council  granted  the  desired  recognition.'' 

In  1811,  the  council  which  met  at  Albany,  N.  Y.,  for  the  purpose 
of  constituting  the  First  Baptist  Church  there,  amended  the  Articles 
of  Faith  and  Covenant  which  the  church  had  drawn  up ;  these 
amendments  were  accepted  by  the  church  without  dissent  and  the 
council  then  voted  to  fellowship  the  church.^ 

2.      DISSOLUTION  AND  DISFELLOWSHIP. 

The  same  principles  wdiich  have  led  to  the  general  practice  of 
subn^itting  to  the  advice  of  a  council  the  question  of  the  institution 
and  recognition  of  new  churches,  have  led  to  a  similar  method  in 
regard  to  dissolution  and  disfellowship.  In  1834,  by  a  majority  of 
one  vote,  the  First  Baptist  Church  of  Shelburne  and  Deerfield  had 
voted  to  disband ;  the  minority  applied  to  the  church  in  Sunderland, 
Mass.,  to  be  organized  as  a  branch  of  that  church.  A  council  was 
called  in  June  of  that  year,  wdiich  decided  that  a  church  could  not 
be  dissolved  by  a  simple  vote,  so  there  was  still  a  First  Church  of 
Shelburne  and  Deerfield.^  Any  other  conclusion  would  place 
churches  in  constant  peril ;  for  otherwise  a  small  minority,  tem- 
porarily in  the  majority  at  a  business  meeting,  could  put  an  end  to  a 
church's  existence.  Upon  advice  of  a  council,  however,  a  church 
may  vote  to  disband,  or  dissolution  could  presumably  be  secured 
without  a  council  by  unanimous  or  even  a  majority  vote,  if  the 
matter  was  properly  brought  up  for  action.  In  1879,  a  council 
which  met  at  Franklin,  Mass..  ''advised  the  church  to  bring  its 
existence  to  a  termination."  The  church  thereupon  voted  to  dis- 
band, directing  the  clerk  to  give  letters  to  any  Baptist  church  to 
all  present  members  who  should  apply  for  them  within  three 
months.^"  This  case  illustrates  the  normal  function  of  the  council 
in  the  dissolution  of  a  Baptist  church. 

It  is  also  the  function  of  councils  to  advise  the  disfellowship- 
ping  of  churches.  Attention  has  already  been  called  (page  40) 
to  the  distinction  between  disfellowship  and  the  severance  of  the 
associational  tie.  Expulsion  from  an  Association,  however,  is  gen- 
erally from  some  cause  which  would  involve  disfellowship  as  the 
next  step.  One  of  the  earliest  formulations  of  the  appropriate  pro- 
cedure in  such  cases  is  found  in  the  "Plan"  under  which  the  Shafts- 


"Archibald,  S.  H. — Hist.  Sketch  of  First  Hundred  Years  of  Bap.  Church 
of  Wallingford,  Vt. 

^Manual  of  First  Bap.  Church. 
'Sheldon.    Hist,  of  Deerfield,  Mass. 
'"Watchman,  July  3,  1879. 


62  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

bury  Association  was  or£?anized.^^     In  its  original   form,  adopted 
in  1807,  it  read  as  follows: 

"Art.  V.     If  any  church  of  the  union  shall  become 
corrupt  in  doctrine  or  practice,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
any  sister  church  who  may  have  knowledge  of  the  same 
to  labor  with  said  offending  church.     If  satisfaction  is 
not  obtained,  it  will  then  become  necessary  for  the  ag- 
grieved church  to  call  for  the  advice  and  assistance  of 
other   churches;    and   if   they   judge   there   is    sufficient 
ground    to    suspend     fellowship     with     the     delinquent 
Church,  their  testimony  and  report  to  the  Association 
shall  be  a  sufficient  reason  to  drop  it  from  the  minutes, 
and  to  publish  to  the  world,  that  they  have  withdrawn 
that  fellowship  which  they  had  given  to  said  delinquent 
Church." 
In  1828  a  new  form  was  adopted,  stating  more  explicitly  that  a 
mutual  council  was  to  be  called,  under  penalty  of  the  disfellowship 
of  the  recalcitrant  church  and  its  expulsion  from  the  Association. 
The  writer  has  found  no  specific  case  where  a  council  has  been  held 
for  such  a  purpose.     In  fact,  those  councils  which  have  apparently 
disfellowshipped  churches,  in  each  case  that  has  come  to  light  in 
this  study  of  the  sources,  have  been  called  by  minorities  within  the 
churches,  and  the  minority  has  been  recognized  as  the  true  church. 
The  disfellowshipping  of  the  majority  is  not,  strictly  speaking  and 
necessarily,  the  disfellowshipping  of  the  church  itself.     Apparently 
in  cases  where  corruption  in  a  church  has  not  led  to  internal  dis- 
sensions and  an  ex  parte  council,  expulsion  from  the  Association 
has  been  the  only  formal  step  towards  denominational  disfellowship. 

3.       ORDINATION. 

There  have  been  three  leading  theories  among  American  Bap- 
tists as  to  the  location  of  the  authority  to  ordain  ministers. 

( 1 )  It  is  lodged  in  the  ministry.  Most  who  hold  this  view 
believe  that  the  ministers  should  never  exercise  this  authority  in- 
dependently of  the  local  church. 

(2)  It  is  lodged  in  the  individual  church.  Most  who  hold  this 
view  believe  that  the  local  church  should  seek  the  approval  of  sister 
churches  in  setting  apart  any  one  to  the  ministry. 

(3)  It  is  lodged  in  the  council,  which  is  called  together  for 
such  a  purpose  by  a  local  church. ^- 


"Wright,  Stephen.    Shaftsbury  Bap.  Assoc,  from  175 1  to  1853. 

''These  three  views  are  well  set  forth  in  the  "Christian  Review"  of  Sept., 
1844. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  63 

While  it  is  not  within  the  scope  of  our  present  study  to  con- 
sider the  nature  of  ordination  as  understood  by  Baptists,  it  will 
be  pertinent  to  examine  the  part  which  the  council  has  taken  his- 
torically in  connection  with  ordination,  noting  especially  how  va- 
rious councils  have  interpreted  their  duties  in  the  setting  apart  of  a 

ministry.  .  ■  ^    ^.u 

Some  of  the  earliest  councils  were  held  m  connection  with  tne 
ordination  of  ministers.  The  history  of  some  of  them  has  already 
been  told  at  some  length  (page  30  sq.).  There  is  no  evidence, 
however,  that  ordination  with  the  assistance  of  a  council  was  ever 
the  rule,  though  the  assistance  of  ministers  was  considered  essential. 
This  was  particularly  true  in  the  South.  In  1789,  in  answer  to  a 
query  concerning  ordination,  the  Charleston  Association  had  an- 
swered :^^ 

"It  is  advised,  that  the  church  call  in  the  assistance 
of  at  least  two,  but   rather  three,  of  the  ministers  in 
union,   who    are   the   most   generally    esteemed   in   the 
churches  for  piety  and  abilities." 
In  1808.  this  same  Association  made  the  following  answer: 
"It  is  recommended  to  the  Churches,  that  on  calling 
out  a  person  to  preach,  they  be  careful  ordinarily  to  ob- 
tain    the     assistance     of     neighboring     ministers     and 
churches,  in  forming  their  judgment  of  his  qualification, 
before  he  be  licensed  to  go  out  publicly  as  a  minister." 
The  Bowdoinham  (Me.)  Association  in  1815,  in  response  to  a 

query  voted : 

"The  ordaining  of  an  Elder,  or  setting  apart  of  one 
to  the  work  of  the  gospel  ministry,  is  the  transaction  so 
solemn  in   its    natitre,   and   so  important   in   its   conse- 
quences, that  it  w^ould  be  highly  improper  for  a  church 
belonging  to  this  Association  to  proceed  to  the  business 
without  the  concurrence  of  a  suitable  number  of  sister 
churches,   furnished    with   Elders,   zvhom,   among  other 
things,   have   received   the   solemn  charge,   'Lav   hands 
suddenly  on  no  man.'  "^^ 
In  its  circular  letters  of  1822  and  1824,  the  Seneca  (N.  Y.)  Asso- 
ciation recommended  that  ordination  should  be  at  the  advice  of  an 
ample  council,  as  the  local  church  "may  be  feeble  and  inexperienced, 
and    influenced   by   undue   personal   attachment.""      In    1834,    this 
Association  passed  the  following  resolution  :^^ 

"Wood,  Furman— Hist,  of  the  Charleston  Association. 

"Circular  Letter  of  1822. 

"Halsey,  Lewis— Hist,  of  Seneca  Baptist  Assoc. 


64  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

"Resolved,  in  view  of  the  great  necessity  of  parti- 
cular care  in  the  introduction  of  brethren  into  the 
solemn  and  responsible  office  of  the  Christian  ministry, 
that  the  churches  be  respectfully  requested  to  procure 
the  concurrent  advice  and  approbation  of  neighboring 
churches  and  ministers,  whenever  a  candidate,  after  a 
suitable  trial,  is  to  be  licensed  to  preach  the  Gospel," 
Reference  should  also  be  made  to  the  minute  adopted  by  the 
West  Greenwich  council  in  1881,  already  quoted,     (p.  46.) 

Having  thus  noted  these  statements  which  only  illustrate  the 
general  consensus  of  Baptist  opinion,  we  turn  now  more  specifically 
to  the  function  of  the  council  in  ordination.  In  the  invitation  sent 
in  1718  for  the  ordination  of  Elisha  Callendar,  the  Boston  Church 
asked  for  Elders  and  Messengers  "to  give  *  *  *  the  right 
hand  of  fellowship  in  his  ordination."  In  its  letter  missive  of  1738, 
it  asked  for  Elders  and  Messengers  "to  assist  at  ye  ordination  of 
our  Said  Elected  Pastor."  The  Springfield  council  of  1740  was  also 
to  assist  in  the  ordination  as  was  the  Warwick  council  of  1743. 

It  is  most  probable  that  the  accounts  of  councils  which  have 
come  down  to  us,  particularly  in  commemorative  sermons  and  in 
communications  to  the  denominational  press,  have  not  always  been 
discriminating  in  their  phraseology.  Thus  we  read  in  one  account 
of  the  council  called  by  the  Sandisfield  (Mass.)  Church  in  1790, 
that  the  church  called  Benj.  Baldwin,  "who  was  ordained  by  a 
council  of  five  ministers  and  nine  lay  delegates  representing  five 
churches  ;"^°  while  in  another  account  we  read,  "In  March,  1790, 
the  church  agreed  to  set  Benj.  Baldwin  apart  *  *  *  j^y  ordi- 
nation by  the  assistance  of  the  several  churches."^'  It  is  evident 
that  the  former  statement  is  loose  while  the  latter  more  probably 
states  the  fact  in  the  case.  Yet  the  constant  reiteration  of  the 
statement,  "the  council  ordained,"  in  local  histories  and  in  the  de- 
nominational press,  with  the  numerous  votes  of  councils  "to  proceed 
to  the  ordination,"  makes  it  evident  that  some  Baptists  have  con- 
sidered that  the  authority  to  ordain  was  lodged  in  the  council  or 
delegated  to  it.  To  present  a  few  illustrations  out  of  many:  In 
1806,  a  council  at  Weathersfield,  Vt.,  after  examining  a  candidate, 
voted  to  ordain  him  on  the  day  following.^®  In  1829,  a  council  met 
at  Providence,  R.  I.,  "for  the  purpose  of  examining  Mr.  Francis 
Whitefield  Emmons  and  if  approved,  of  ordaining  him  to  the  work 


"Smith,  J.  T.     "Century  of  Church  Work."     Centennial  sermon,  printed 
in  Berkshire  Courier,  Aug.,  1879. 

"Hist,  of  Sandisfield  Church.    Also  in  Association  Minutes  of  1853. 
''Johnson,  R.  G.     Hist.  Sketch  of  No.  Springfield   (Vt.)   Bap.  Ch. 


THK  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  65 

of  the  Gospel  ministry."^^  A  council  at  West  Boylston,  Mass.,  in 
1832,  "proceeded  to  ordination."  We  have  the  statement  of  J.  G. 
Stearns,  in  his  "Primitive  Church,"  published  in  1835,  that  Baptist 
"ministers  are  in  all  cases  (he  believes)  ordained  by  the  authority  of 
councils."  In  1840,  at  Willimantic,  Conn.,  the  council  "Voted  *  *  * 
that  we  now  proceed  to  set  him  apart  as  the  Pastor  of  the  church, 
by  solemn  ordination. "-°  In  1852,  a  council  at  Royalston  Centre, 
Mass.,  "recommends  the  church  to  proceed  to  ordination."-^  The 
Watchman  of  Sept.  30.  1869,  contains  an  article  by  a  correspondent 
who  says  that  at  a  recent  council  the  motion  was  made  "That  the 
council  are  satisfied  with  the  relation  of  Christian  experience,  call 
to  the  ministry  and  vievv's  of  doctrine  to  which  we  have  listened  and 
that  we  now  proceed  to  ordain  the  brother  to  the  work  of  the  min- 
istry." A  member  of  the  council  objected  to  the  last  part  of  the 
motion  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  the  council  but  the  church 
which  ordains.  The  motion  was  then  changed  from  "proceed  to 
ordain"  to  "proceed  to  the  service  of  ordination."  The  West  Green- 
wich minute  already  referred  to  uses  the  phrase,  "a  council  to  ex- 
amine and  ordain."  It  is  evident  that  councils  have  differently  inter- 
preted their  function  in  ordination ;  to-day,  a  vote  to  recommend 
the  church  to  proceed  to  the  ordination  is  probably  considered  most 
consistent  with  the  usual  form  of  the  call. 

It  has  generally  been  the  custom  for  the  council,  through  a  com- 
mittee, on  which  the  candidate  and  the  local  church  as  well  as  the 
council  itself  are  usually  represented,  to  prepare  the  order  of  service 
for  the  ordination.  Strange  to  say,  there  has  often  been  a  sensitive 
feeling  on  the  part  of  some  members  of  councils  if  a  church  has 
prepared  a  provisional  program  in  anticipation  of  the  approval  of 
the  council.  Such  action  by  a  local  church  has  even  been  termed  an 
insult,  being  interpreted  as  an  assumption  that  the  work  of  the  coun- 
cil would  be  merely  perfunctory.  It  should  be  perfectly  obvious, 
however,  that  the  motive  is  the  convenience  of  all  concerned ;  more- 
over, unless  the  ordaining  power  is  lodged  in  the  council,  it  is  difficult 
to  see  how  the  latter  has  any  jurisdiction  in  the  ordination  service 
at  all :  its  work  is  done  when  it  has  passed  upon  the  fitness  of  the 
candidate.  But  for  the  warrant  of  a  custom  (and  the  so-called 
"insult"  has  the  equally  good  warrant  of  another  custom),  the  coun- 
cil could  be  charged  with  infringing  upon  the  rights  of  the  church 
whenever  it  has  appointed  a  committee  to  prepare  an  order  of  serv- 
ice, unless  the  church  has  asked  it  so  to  do.     The  question  in  gen- 


"Christian  Watchman,   May  29,   1829. 
•"Christian  Secretary,  June  19,  1840. 
"^Watchman  and  Reflector,  March   ir,   1852. 


66  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

eral,  however,  is  one  only  of  etiquette,  although  in  one  case  at  least 
the  action  of  a  council  in  connection  with  the  ordination  service 
seems  to  pass  over  into  a  question  of  polity. 

We  refer  to  the  action  of  the  council  at  Pittsfield,  Mass.,  m 
1877,  called  to  consider  the  advisability  of  ordaining  the  pastor-elect 
of  the  First  Baptist  Church.  After  the  approval  of  the  candidate 
as  worthy  of  ordination,  he  requested  that  the  usual  laying  on  of 
hands  be  omitted.  The  council  voted  to  proceed  to  ordination,  but 
by  vote  declined  to  comply  with  the  request,  though  it  seems  to 
have  reached  an  informal  agreement  to  leave  the  method  of  laying 
on  of  hands,  which  seemed  to  form  part  of  the  objection,  to  be  de- 
cided by  the  minister  who  should  offer  the  ordaining  prayer  and  the 
candidate.  When  the  prayer  was  ofifered,  there  was  no  imposition 
of  hands.  *'The  council,"  remarked  The  Watchman  editorially,  "did 
what  it  refused  to  do  by  vote."^- 

It  must  be  acknowledged  that  custom  has  given  to  the  council  a 
share  in  the  preparation  of  the  order  of  service;  unless,  however, 
ordination  is  by  the  authority  of  the  council  rather  than  by  its  ad- 
vice, it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  council  had  any  real  jurisdiction  in 
the  matter  of  the  imposition  of  hands.  It  would  have  been  more 
consistent,  however,  for  the  candidate  not  to  have  made  the  request 
to  the  council  unless  he  either  intended  to  follow  its  advice  or  else 
considered  that  the  council  did  have  jurisdiction  in  the  matter. 

Complaint  has  often  been  made  that  councils  have  been  called 
to  meet  so  near  the  appointed  time  for  the  public  services  of  ordina- 
tion that  they  have  been  obliged  to  hurry  through  their  deliberations  ; 


"Watchman,  June  21,  July  5,  12  and  19,  1877.  The  incident  caused  con- 
siderable discussion,  and  shortly  afterwards.  Dr.  Alvah  Hovey,  President  of 
Newton  Theological  Institution,  read  to  the  Boston  Baptist  Ministers'  Con- 
ference a  paper  entitled  "On  the  Imposition  of  Hands  in  Ordination,"  which 
was  printed  in  the  Watchman  of  Aug.  2,  1877.  His  conchisions,  so  far  as 
they  related  at  all  to  the  functions  of  the  council,  were  as  follows : 

2.  "That  this  act  (laying  on  of  hands)  more  than  any  other  represents 
and  declares  the  decision  of  the  council  to  set  apart  to  the  Christian  ministry, 
and  therefore  it  ought  not  to  be  omitted     *     *     * 

4.  "That  since  what  is  represented  and  declared  by  the  imposition  of 
hands  is  authorized  by  a  council  when  it  votes  to  set  apart  to  the  Christian 
ministry,  the  latter  act  asserts  as  much  authority  as  the  former,  and,  if  the 
latter  act  is  not  on  that  account  objectionable,  neither  is  the  former. 

5.  "That  the  decision  of  a  properly  organized  council — made  after  care- 
ful examination — that  the  candidate  is  qualified  for  the  work  of  the  ministry 
and  should  be  entrusted  with  that  office  and  commended  to  the  churches  by  a 
public  and  solemn  service — is  the  strictly  indispensable  fact.  A  suitable  an- 
nouncement of  this  decision  is  a  matter  of  great  impoi'tance ;  but  the  decision 
itself  and  its  publication  in  some  way  are  indispensible.  And  in  its  publica- 
tion, as  far  as  I  can  judge,  the  imposition  of  hands  is  fully  as  important  as 
the  prayer  of  ordination,  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  or  the  charge." 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  67 

it  has  been  charged,  even,  that  councils  have  been  induced  to  approve 
of  ordination  in  some  cases  by  the  desire  to  avoid  the  embarrass- 
ment of  refusal,  as  a  congregation  was  already  assembling.  As 
early  as  1831,  (Feb.  12)  the  Christian  Secretarv,  in  an  editorial,  sug- 
gested "the  propriety  of  convening  a  council  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
amination some  time  previous  to  the  period  fixed  upon  for  the  more 
public  exercises."  In  1847,  the  Philadelphia  Association  recom- 
mended the  churches  "uniformly  to  leave  the  appointment  of  the 
time  for  the  ordination  to  the  Council  thev  may  invite."  At  some 
time  previous  to  June  1849,  the  Baptist  mmisters  of  Rhode  Island 
had  passed  a  standing  resolution  not  to  proceed  to  the  ordination  of 
any  candidate  on  the  same  day  that  the  examination  should  take 
place.  When  m  that  year  a  council  met  in  Richmond,  althouo-h  the 
church,  unaware  of  the  resolution,  had  arranged  for  the  public  serv- 
ice on  the  same  day,  the  council  "felt  compelled  bv  a  sense  of  duty 
to  maintain  the  rule."-^ 

The  action  of  councils  in  the  case  of  ministers  already  ordained 
m  other  denominations  has  not  been  altogether  consistent.  In  such 
cases  as  have  come  to  the  writer's  attention,  the  ministers  who  have 
become  Baptists  have  all  come  from  other  evangelical  denomina- 
tions, and,  in  most  cases,  the  previous  ordination  has  been  formally 
recognized  by  the  councils.  In  a  few  cases,  the  council  has  been 
called  for  the  purpose  of  ordaining  the  candidate  and  that  has  been 
done.  This  is  the  prevailing  practice  in  the  South.  The  action 
toward  ministers  coming  from  the  same  denomination  has  varied. 
Commenting  upon  the  re-ordination  of  Emory  J.  Haynes,  who  for 
a  season  left  the  Methodists  for  the  Baptist  fold,  the  Watchman 
remarked,  "This  transaction,  though  not  without  example  is  so  far 
as  we  know,  unusual."-*  In  September,  1877,  a  council  at  Johns- 
town, ^^.  Y.,  called  to  recognize  or  ordain  a  man  who  had  been  a 
Second  Adventist  minister,  voted  to  ordain  him.-^ 

The  custom  of  formally  ordaining  deacons  is  not  now  so  frequent 
among  American  Baptists  as  it  was  in  the  earlier  days.  On  quite  a 
number  of  occasions,  councils  were  held  in  connection  with  the  ordi- 
nation services ;  a  list  of  these,  of  questionable  completeness,  will  be 

==Watchman  and  Reflector,  June  21,  1849.  In  1895,  the  Chicago  Associa- 
tion passed  the  following  resolution  : 

"Resolved,  That  we  express  our  conviction  that  no  church  should  antici- 
pate the  action  of  a  council  called  for  the  examination  of  a  candidate  for  ordi- 
nation by  arranging  for  the  ordination  of  the  candidate  in  advance  of  the 
meeting  of  the  council." 

The  following  year  a  similar  resolution  was  passed. 

"^Watchman,  April  19,  1877. 

"''Watchman,  Sept.  27,  1877. 


68  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

found  in  Appendix  B.  Councils  have  also  been  held  for  the  ordina- 
tion of  evangelists,  as  in  1808,  when  the  New  Hampshire  Associa- 
tion, after  adjournment,  met  as  a  council  at  the  request  of  the  Gil- 
manton  Baptist  Church,  and  examined  the  candidate.  In  1835,  ^ 
council  at  Cortland,  N.  Y.,  voted  to  ordain  Samuel  S.  Day  ''as  an 
evangelist,  and  in  the  afternoon  to  set  him  apart  for  a  missionary 
to  preach  the  gospel  among  the  heathen  in  a  foreign  land."-''.  In 
1864,  a  council  called  to  meet  in  Wellsburgh,  N.  Y.,  to  consider  the 
propriety  of  ordaining  a  candidate  as  chaplain  for  the  army,  voted 
to  proceed  to  ordination.-^ 

In  December,  1894,  a  council  met  at  the  Calvary  Church,  New 
York  City,  to  consider  the  propriety  of  ordaining  Henry  C.  Vedder, 
who  had  not  been  called  to  a  pastorate  but  was  Professor  of  Church 
History  at  Crozer  Theological  Seminary.  The  following  preamble 
and  resolution  were  offered:-^ 

"Whereas,  the  ordination  of  men  who  are  to  be 
neither  pastors  nor  deacons,  to  what  is  called  'the  min- 
istrv,'  implies  the  conferring  of  what  others  call  'holy 
orders,'  and  the  creation  of  a  third  office  belonging  to  no 
church  and  responsible  to  no  organization,  *  *  * 
therefore 

Resolved,  that  before  we  proceed  *  ■''  *  we  in- 
quire *  *  whether  such  ordination  would  be  in  any 
sense  a  departure  from  the  long-cherished  customs  of 
our  churches     *     *     *" 

The  resolution  was  laid  upon  the  table  by  vote  of  the  council, 
which  advised  the  ordination  of  Professor  Vedder. 


"^Howell,  W.  J.    Hist.  Discourse  at  Centennial  Anniversary. 

^'Watchman  and  Reflector,  Oct.  6,  1864. 

"^Watchman,  Jan.  3,  1895.  This  incident  was  discussed  in  the  denom- 
inational press  of  the  time.  The  Watchman  of  Jan.  31,  1895,  contains  a  let- 
ter from  Dr.  E.  T.  Hiscox,  who  thought  there  was  neither  precedent  nor 
authority  for  the  ordination.  There  seems  no  valid  objection,  however,  from 
the  Baptist  conception  of  ordination,  to  setting  apart  to  certain  functions,  as 
those  of  evangelists,  foreign  missionaries  and  theological  teachers.  There 
have  certainly  been  precedents  for  the  two  former  classes;  the  ordination  of 
Joel  S.  Bacon,  the  President  of  Georgetown  College,  Ky.,  in  1831,  and  that 
of  J.  L.  M.  Curry,  the  President  of  Howard  College,  in  Alabama,  both  cases 
virtually  in  response  to  the  feeling  that  a  college  president  should  be  a  min- 
ister, may  be  cited  as  precedents  for  the  last  class,  though  neither  of  these  two 
was  specifically  a  theological  teacher. 


THE     FUNCTIONS     OF    THE     COUNCIL  69 

4.      INSTALLATION    AND   DISMISSION. 

"The  word  'installation'  has  been  creeping  into  use  among  us,'" 
remarked  one  of  the  leading  denominational  papers  editorially,  some 
twenty  years  ago,  "but  the  thing  never."^^ 

It  is  true  that  the  word  "installation"  has  often  been  loosely  used 
for  a  public  recognition  of  a  minister  who  is  just  entering  upon  a 
pastorate,  instead  of  restricting  its  use  to  denote  the  formal  induc- 
tion of  a  minister  into  a  specific  pastorate.  Recognition,  strictly 
speaking,  implies  that  the  minister  has  already  entered  the  pastoral 
office.  The  mere  presence  of  delegates,  invited  to  attend  a  recog- 
nition service,  does  not  transform  the  latter  into  an  installation ;  it 
becom.es  practically  equivalent  to  that,  however,  if  the  delegates  are 
called  in  council  and  are  asked  to  give  formal  recognition  of  the 
new-  pastoral  relation."^  Moreover,  there  have  been  cases  among 
the  Baptists  where  a  council  has  been  called  to  install  a  pastor,  and 
it  has  voted  to  proceed  to  the  installation.  So  when  we  read  that  a 
Baptist  minister  has  been  installed,  it  may  be  that  he  has  only  been 
publicly  recognized ;  if  we  read  that  he  w^as  recognized  or  installed 
by  a  council,  we  may  understand  the  event  as  virtually,  if  not  actual- 
ly, an  installation. 

The  earliest  instance  of  a  Baptist  installation  council,  (not  to 
consider  that  of  Congregational  churches  called  by  the  First  Baptist 
Church  of  Boston  in  1764),  distinct  from  one  called  primarily  to 
ordain,  appears  to  have  been  in  1770,  when  the  West  Royalston 
(Mass.)  Church  called  "an  ecclesiastical  council  to  install  as  pastor 
the  Rev.  Whitman  Jacobs."^^  In  1802,  the  same  church  called  a 
council  to  install  Elder  Hodge  as  its  pastor. 

Late  in  I788,the  New  London  (N.  H.)  church  had  been  recog- 
nized by  a  council  and  the  next  week  it  voted  to  call  as  its  pastor/ 
Elder  Seamans,  who  had  been  acting  as  town  preacher  since  June' 
of  the  previous  year.  Upon  his  acceptance,  a  day  was  appointed  for 
his  formal  installation.  The  large  council  which  convened  from  four 
neighboring  towns  "inquired  into  Elder  Seaman's  ministerial  quali- 
fications, his  dismission  from  the  church  (in  Attleboro,  Mass.)  and 


'°    Watchman,  April  17,  1884. 

'"The  action  of  the  council  for  public  recognition  called  by  the  First  Bap- 
tist Church,  Bristol,  R.  I.,  may  be  cited  as  an  instance  (Christian  Watchman, 
Nov.  23,  1842). 

"Voted,  That  we  are  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  religious  views  and  ex- 
perience of  the  Rev.  Edward  Freeman,  and  consent  to  aid  in  the  services  of 
recognizing  him  as  pastor  of  this  church." 

"Kenny,  Silas.    Hist,  of  the  W.  R.  Bapt.  Church,  in  Wendell  Assoc.  Min- 
utes of  1854. 


70  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

recommendation  to  this  church."^-  The  second  pastor  of  the  New 
London  church  was  also  installed,  in  1828.  Although  he  had  been 
previously  ordained,,  "the  Council  nevertheless  proceeded  to  hear 
his  Christian  experience,  call  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  and  his 
views  of  Christian  doctrine,  as  though  for  re-ordination,  not  _a 
mere  recognition."  The  third  pastor  of  this  church,  who  began  his 
Dastorate  in  1836,  was  not  installed. 

The  church  at  Barnstable,  Mass.,  installed  its  pastor  in  1802. 
Delegates  from  five  churches  were  present,  and  as  a  moderator  and 
clerk  were  chosen,  this  appears  to  have  been  installation  by  council.^® 

In  1803,  Rev.  Elisha  Williams  was  installed  as  pastor  of  the 
church  at  Beverly,  Mass.  In  giving  the  charge  to  the  pastor,  Dr. 
Stillman  of  Boston  said  :^* 

"On  the  present  occasion,  we  have  not  met  to  ordain 
this  our  Brother,  but  to  introduce  him,  as  already  or- 
dained, to  the  pastoral  care  of  this  particular  church  and 
society,  agreeably  to  their  unanimous  call.  This  might 
have  been  done  in  a  private  way,  but  the  present  mode, 
in  my  judgment,  is  more  eligible,  because  there  is  an 
obvious  religious  fitness  in  it.  The  character  of  a  min- 
ister of  the  gospel  is  sacred  and  important.  Instalment 
is  a  solemn  covenant  entered  into  between  him  and  the 
church ;  no  matter  how  public  it  is.  Let  God,  angels  and 
men  witness  the  interesting  transaction.  And  may  the 
repeated  recollection  of  it  happily  prevent  pastor  and 
church  from  acting  incompatible  with  their  obligations 
to  God  and  to  each  other." 

Apparently  Dr.  Stillman  considered  the  presence  and  the  action 
of  the  council  as  adding  to  the  publicity,  the  deliberateness  and  the 
solemnity  of  the  covenant  thus  made  between  pastor  and  people. 

In  1822,  a  council  for  installation  was  held  at  Roxbury,  Mass. 
This  proceeded  to  the  public  exercises  of  the  occasion  only  after 
examining  the  proceedings  of  the  church  and  the  testimonials  rel- 
ative to  the  pastor-elect,  and  having  heard  his  Christian  experience, 


"""Centennial  History  of  the  Bapt.  Church,"  in  History  of  New  London. 

^"Christian   Watchman,    Sept.    23,    1836. 

"^  Dr.  Stillman  speaks  of  "the  part  assigned  me  by  the  council,"  as  does 
another  participant,  showing  that  the  council  arranged  the  program,  at  least 
nominally.  The  addresses  are  published  in  a  pamphlet  entitled  ''Sermon  de- 
livered at  Beverly,  June  15,  1803,  at  the  Installation  of  the  Rev.  Elisha  Wil- 
liams to  the  Pastoral  Care  of  the  Baptist  Church  and  Congregation  in  that 
Town,  bv  Thomas  Baldwin,  A.  M.'" 


THE    FUNCTIONS     OF     THE     COUNCIL  7I 

call  to  the  ministry,  and  his  views  of  doctrine  and  the  gospel  ordi- 
nances.^" 

Similar  cases  might  be  multiplied,  but  sufficient  examples  have 
been  cited  to  show  that  Baptist  councils  have  exercised  a  function  in 
the  installation  of  pastors.  The  thing  as  well  as  the  name  has  been 
among  American  Baptists.  Yet  it  has  by  no  means  ever  been  a  gen- 
eral custom  among  them  and  was  early  considered  superfluous.  The 
Lincoln  Association  of  Maine  declared  against  instaUation  in  1815, 
and  two  other  Associations  in  the  same  State,  the  Cumberland  and 
the  Bowdoinham,  did  likewise  only  a  few  years  later.  When  in 
1837.  Elder  Kenny  became  pastor  of  the  West  Royalston  Church, 
which,  as  w^e  have  just  seen,  had  already  installed  two  of  its  pastors, 
he  entered  his  pastorate  by  simple  vote  of  his  church.  He  doubted, 
we  are  told,  the  expediency  and  the  authority  of  the  common  prac- 
tice of  installing  ministers  already  ordained. ^^  The  custom  of  instal- 
lation, however,  has  gradually  died  out  among  the  Baptists  and 
councils  are  now  rarely,  if  ever,  called  for  that  purpose. 

It  seems  fitting  that  a  church  which  calls  a  council  to  install  its 
pastor  should  call  another  when  the  pastoral  tie  is  to  be  severed ;  yet 
councils  for  dismission,  except  in  cases  of  internal  discord,  have 
rarely  been  held  among  American  Baptists.  In  his  "Fifty  Years 
among  the  Baptists,"  David  Benedict  wrote,  "It  may  be  well  for  the 
Baptists  to  call  councils  for  the  dismission  as  well  as  for  the  settle- 
ment of  their  pastors."  In  1792,  a  council  was  held  at  East  Corn- 
wall, Conn.,  which  was  unable  to  find  grounds  sufficient  for  it  to 
advise  the  severance  of  the  pastoral  relation  in  the  church  there. ^® 
In  1832,  the  council  which  was  called  to  consider  the  ordination  of 
the  successor  of  Rev.  Jonathan  Going,  was  also  asked  "to  express 
their  opinion  respecting  the  dismission"  of  the  latter  who  was  about 
to  enter  upon  new  duties  in  connection  with  the  organization  of 
home  missionary  work.^'^  This  really  looked  forward  to  Dr.  Going's 
new  work,  however,  rather  than  to  the  severance  of  the  pastoral  tie 
which  was  involved ;  the  council  would  probably  not  have  been 
called  for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  dismission  only.  The  other 
cases  of  councils  called  to  consider  dismissions  apparently  were 
primarily  in  the  interests  of  peace. 

Reference  m.ay  be  made  to  an  agreement  entered  into  between 
Rev.  Isaac  Skillman  and  the  Baptist  church  and  congregation  and 


^'  Christian  Watchman,  April  13,  1822. 

^' Fennel],  W.  G,  Hist.  Address,  College  St.   Bapt.  Church,  East  Corn- 
wall. Conn. 

^'  Christian  Watchman,  Jan.  27,  1832. 


72  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

their  Trustees  at  Salem,  N.  J.,  in  1791,  which  concerned  the  disso- 
lution of  the  pastoral  relation  in  case  of  discontent.^^ 

"And  further  the  said  parties  agree  and  promise  each 
to  the  other  that  if  any  discontent  on  the  part  of  the  said 
Mr.  Skillman,  whereby  he  should  wish  to  be  dismissed 
from  serving-  said  Church  and  Congregation,  or  if  any 
discontent  should  arise  in  the  Church  and  Congregation 
that  they  should  wish  to  have  the  said  Mr.  Skillman  dis- 
missed from  being  their  minister,  in  either  case,  they 
may,  if  either  of  them  see  meat  (sic)  call  the  minister 
and  two  of  the  members  from  Cumberland  and  Wilming- 
ton Baptist  Churches  to  judge  between  them,  and  their 
determination  shall  be  binding  to  each  party." 

The  judges  thus  provided  for  may  not  strictly  be  considered  a 
council ;  moreover,  the  agreement  does  not  seem  to  apply  to  a  sever- 
ance of  the  pastoral  tie  by  mutual  consent.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
does  not  apply  to  differences  between  pastor  and  people  except  when 
these  lead  to  the  desire  on  one  side  or  the  other  for  the  termination 
of  the  pastoral  relation.  It  is  apparently  intended  to  apply  to  the 
situation  before  an  acute  stage  is  reached,  and  so  may  be  called 
an  agreement  for  a  council  of  dismission  as  well  as  in  the  interests 
of  peace. 

5.      DEPOSITION  AND  RESTORATION. 

If  ministers  are  given  standing  among  the  churches  by  receiving 
ordination  only  upon  the  approval  of  a  council,  it  is  only  consistent 
that  their  standing  should  not  be  wholly  at  the  mercy  of  a  majority 
in  a  single  church,  but  that  they  should  be  deposed,  if  unworthy, 
similarly  by  the  advice  of  a  council  which  should  examine  into  the 
case.  Likewise,  if  a  deposed  minister  be  found  later  worthy  of  re- 
admission  to  the  ministerial  ofifice,  he  should  be  restored  only  upon 
the  advice  of  an  adequate  council. 

In  1793,  a  mutual  council,  called  to  consider  charges  against  the 
pastor  of  the  Marshfield  (Mass.)  church,  advised  the  church  to  de- 
pose him  from  his  office  and  the  church  thereupon  did  so.^^  In  1814 
the  Lincoln  (Me.)  Association 

"Voted,  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  Association 
that  it  is  expedient  that  a  council  be  called  by  the 
Churches,  to  depose  an  elder  from  or  restore  him  to  his 
office." 


"*  Semblower,  A.  H.,  Hist,  of  ist  Bapt.  Church,  Salem,  N.  J. 
"  Centennial  History  of  Marshfield  Church. 


THE    FUNCTIONS     OF     THE     COUNCIL  73 

The  IMiiscle  Shoal  Association  of  Alabama,  in  1823,  expressed  a 
similar  opinion  in  regard  to  restoration.*" 

"  'Query.  Is  it  good  order,  or  not,  for  a  church  to 
restore  an  ordained  minister,  who  has  been  excluded,  to 
the  full  functions  of  the  ministry,  without  the  aid  of  a 
presbytery?'  Answer.  We  think  it  not  in  order  in  a 
church." 

These  expressions  by  the  Associations  are  evidently  not  intended 
as  innovations,  but  as  reflections  of  the  ideal  polity  of  the  times.  In 
the  South,  it  has  been  more  customary  to  have  a  council  consisting 
only  of  ministers  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  such  cases ;  and  in  the 
North,  that  method  has  been  occasionally  employed.  In  1825,  the 
Ministerial  Conference  of  the  Woodstock  (Vt.)  Baptist  Association 
deposed  a  minister,'*^  and  as  recently  as  1904,  a  mutual  council  com- 
posed of  leading  ministers  which  met  at  Tremont  Temple,  Boston, 
advised  a  suburban  church  to  depose  one  of  its  members,  a  former 
pastor,  from  the  ministry.*-  In  a  case  which  seriously  disturbed  the 
First  Church  of  New  York  City  in  1829,  a  committee  of  the  church 
investigated  the  charges  against  the  pastor,  and  submitted  their  re- 
port to  five  neighboring  Baptist  ministers  of  repute  for  their  re- 
view.*^ Somewhat  similarly,  the  Waco  (Texas)  church  in  trying 
their  pastor  for  heresy  in  1889,  invited  in  the  other  Baptist  pastors  of 
the  city  to  sit  as  an  advisory  council.**  This  council  was  not  to  try 
the  case,  however,  but  to  observe  the  proceedings  of  the  church  that 
it  might  certify  to  the  fairness  of  the  trial. 

In  1840,  a  council  called  to  consider  troubles  in  one  of  the 
churches  in  New  London,  Conn.,  which  had  deposed  a  minister,  ex- 
cluding him  and  several  other  members,  in  addition  to  its  recom- 
mendations on  the  specific  business  submitted  to  it,  passed  the  fol- 
lowing resolution  :*^ 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  the  deliberate  decision  of  this 
Council  that  it  is  inexpedient  for  a  Church  of  Christ  to 
proceed  in  their  discipline  against  a  minister  to  his  exclu- 


^"Holcombe,  Hosea.  History  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Baptists 
in  Alabama,     p.  166. 

^  Christian  Watchman,  Feb.  12,  1825. 

*"  Watchman,  May  12,  1904. 

*^  "The  Proceedings  of  the  First  Baptist  Church  of  New  York  in  Rela- 
tion to  the  Slanderous  Charges  brought  against  their  Pastor,  Elder  William 
Parkinson,  by  Maria  Shade,  otherwise  called  Maria  Seaman." 

""Trial  of  M.  T.  Martin  by  the  First  Baptist  Church  at  Waco,  Texas." 
Official  Report. 

^^  Christian  Secretary,  Jan.  15,  1841. 


74  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

sion,  without  first  calling  to  their  aid  an   ecclesiastical 

Council." 
In  1879,  a  council  was  called  at  Athens,  N.  Y.,  to  review  the 
action  of  the  church  there  in  withdrawing  fellowship  from  its  late 
pastor.  The  council  approved  the  action,  which,  however,  in  its 
opinion,  it  would  have  been  wiser  for  the  church  to  have  taken  after, 
rather  than  before  the  advice  of  the  council  was  sought. ■**^ 

In  most  of  the  cases  where  councils  have  been  called  to  consider 
the  deposition  of  ministers,  the  charges  preferred  have  involved 
moral  lapses.  It  is  not  within  our  sphere  to  consider  these  in  detail, 
and  already  enough  has  been  said  to  show  the  normal  way  in  which 
such  cases  have  been  treated.^^  In  a  few  cases  the  charges  have 
been  of  heresy,  which  councils  have  considered  in  some  instances  as 
sufficient  warrant  for  deposition  from  the  ministry.  In  1823,  for 
example,  the  First  Church  of  Trenton,  N.  J.,  called  a  council  of 'four 
clergymen,  of  whom  three  only  met,  who  found  that  the  pastor  had 
"departed  from  the  faith  of  the  particular  Baptist  Church,"  and  they 
advised  that  he  should  "be  immediately  notified  that  until  he  re- 
nounces his  errors,  he  cannot  have  fellowship  as  a  regular  Gospel 
minister."^®  The  church  thereupon  took  precipitate  action,  at  once 
excluding  the  pastor  from  fellowship.  In  1859,  the  Keokuk,  Iowa, 
church  was  advised  by  a  council  to  exclude  a  minister  who  held  open 
communion  views.*^ 

There  have  not  been  many  cases  of  councils  called  to  restore 
ministers  previously  deposed  from  the  ministry,  though  probably 
there  have  been  more  than  the  few  which  have  come  to  the  attention 
of  the  present  writer.  All  the  cases  examined  have  been  faulty  in  the 
light  of  true  principles  of  fellowship,  in  that  the  councils  have  been 
significantly  small,  or  were  divided  as  to  their  advice,  or  failed  to 
show  proper  respect  to  the  councils  which  had  acted  in  the  deposi- 
tion of  the  ministers  in  question.  Thus  in  1854,  a  council  at  Jeflfer- 
son,  Me.,  restored  a  minister  by  a  vote  of  11  to  4.=^''     In  1877,  a 


'"Watchman,  Feb.  13.  1879. 

"A  council  which  was  held  in  Akron,  Ohio,  in  November,  1877  which 
voted  to  ordain  a  candidate,  was  recalled  very  soon  afterwards,  'serious 
charges  being  brought  against  the  man.  It  decided  that  he  had  deceived  it 
^l  I  A  fTT  ^'1'!  ^'°  Z°^^^  *^'^  ordination  "null  and  void,"  and  withdrew 
hv  tSfp  °M  ^/'''''JP-  J}'^  ^^^'°".  '"  annulHng  the  ordination  is  criticised 
1878  Weekly.     Quoted,  with  comment,  in  the  Watchman,  Jan.  31, 

-  ■"Miller,  D.  H.     "Historical  Discourse." 
'"  Watchman  and  Reflector.  Sept.  15,  1859. 
■"Watchman  and  Reflector,  July  27,  1854. 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  75 

small  council,  after  a  larger  council  had  taken  adverse  action,  was 
called  and  voted  to  ordain  a  man  who  had  been  deposed  and  excom- 
municated by  another  denomination. — thus  virtually  restoring  him 
to  the  ministry. ^^  In  1895,  a  council  at  N.  Kenneljunk,  Me.,  by  a 
vote  of  8  to  3,  advised  the  reinstatement  of  a  man  deposed  by  advice 
of  a  council  held  a  few  years  previously  in  another  state ;  this  coun- 
cil voted  down  a  motion  which  looked  to  the  consideration  of  the 
action  of  the  earlier  council,  thus  ignoring  the  obligations  of  fellow- 
ship, on  which  very  principle  alone  the  council  itself  could  claim 
any  right  to  exist.^- 

6.       COUNCILS    CALLED    IN   THE    INTEREST   OF    PEACE. 

It  has  sometimes  occurred  that  councils  called  ostensibly  for  other 
purposes  have  actually  done  their  work  in  the  interests  of  peace. 
Thus,  as  we  have  seen,  councils  invited  for  the  recognition  of 
churches  have  taken  into  account  the  relation  of  the  prospective  new 
church  to  those  in  the  vicinity  already  established ;  pastors  who  ask 
for  dismission  by  a  council,  or  ministers  against  whom  are  brought 
charges  which,  if  proven,  will  lead  to  deposition,  very  often  have  a 
personal  following  among  the  members  of  their  own  churches,  so  that 
the  latter  may  be  threatened  with  disruption.  In  such  cases  the  lack 
of  peace  is  not  always  formally  recognized  in  the  call  for  the  council. 
The  ex  parte  council,  also,  which  from  the  very  nature  of  its 
creation  presupposes  a  lack  of  harmony  sufficient  to  make  a  mutual 
council  possible,  may  be  mentioned.  All  of  these  classes  have 
already  been  referred  to ;  it  will  be  necessary  to  add  here  only  that 
it  has  sometimes  been  difficult  to  decide  whether  a  particular  case 
might  better  have  been  postponed  to  be  considered  in  this  con- 
nection. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  the  first  council  of  which  we  have  found 
definite  evidence  was  that  which  was  invited  by  the  Middletown 
(N.  J.)  church  in  1712,  to  advise  the  church  in  regard  to  a  division 
which  had  thrown  it  into  a  distracted  condition.  The  method,  while 
not  that  agreed  to  five  years  earlier  by  the  churches  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Philadelphia  Association,  was  nevertheless  fully  in  accord 
with  the  principles  of  fellowship  which  had  been  clearly  stated  by  the 
Baptists  both  of  England  and  America.  While  from  1712  onward 
the  Philadelphia  and  other  Associations,  through  committees  and  in 
other  ways,  did  what  they  could  to  conserve  peace  and  to  restore 
harmony  where  that  had  been  disturbed  by  discord  within  a  local 
church  or  between  the  churches,  the  council  has  more  often  been 

"  Watchman,  Oct.  25.  1877. 
•''"  Watchman,  Oct.  24,  1895. 


y6  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

used  to  exercise  this  irenic  function,  especially  after  there  has  been 
any  open  rupture. 

We  will  turn  first  to  the  function  of  councils  in  cases  where  the 
discord  is  between  local  churches  and  then  where  it  is  primarily 
internal.  Perhaps  one  of  the  most  delicate  situations  in  inter-church 
relations  arises  when  a  church  desires  to  admit  to  its  membership 
those  who  have  been  apparently  unjustly  excluded  from  a  sister 
church.  Churches  which  have  asserted  most  vigorously  their  right, 
because  of  their  independent  status,  to  exclude  members  without 
interference  on  the  part  of  any  other  church,  have  often  been  most 
sensitive  when  another  church  has  asserted  its  independence  by  ad- 
mitting these  excluded  individuals  to  membership.  It  is  pertinent 
to  our  subject  for  us  to  notice  some  of  the  utterances  of  denomina- 
tional bodies  on  this  problem  of  inter-church  comity.  As  early  as 
i8is,  the  Bowdoinham  Association  of  Maine,  in  response  to  the 
query, 

"Is  it  agreeable  to  Apostolic  Order,  and  for  the  peace, 
harmony,  and  union  of  churches,  for  one  church  to  re- 
ceive a  member  who  is  excluded  from  another  church  of 
the  same  faith  and  order,  until  it  is  made  evident  that  the 
church  excluding,  is  corrupt  in  discipline,  and  struck  out 
of  the  fellowship  of  the  associated  body?" 
made  answer  (according  to  Millet,  it  was  in  concurrence  with  a  vote 
of  the  Cumberland  Association  of  1812), — 

"Each  church  is  independent  with  respect  to  discipline," 
and  also  that  "an  association  of  churches  have  no  power 
to  abrogate  the  censures  of  an  individual  church ;  and 
therefore  all  questions  and  difficulties  between  churches 
and  difficulties  between  churches  and  excluded  members, 
are  to  be  decided  by  councils  of  ministers  and  churches 
appointed  by  the  consent  of  parties ;  and  therefore  a 
second  church  may  receive  an  excluded  member  by  the 
advice  of  a  council  so  called,  if  the  church  excluding  re- 
fuses to  receive  such  a  member  at  the  advice  of  such 
council." 

This  principle  has  generally  been  accepted  by  American  Baptists, 
although  there  have  been  occasional  instances  where  a  church  has 
taken  umbrage  that  its  exscinding  action  has  not  settled  for  all  time 
the  ecclesiastical  standing  of  the  persons  involved.  Specific  refer- 
ence may  well  be  made  to  the  action  of  a  representative  council  held 
in  New  York  City  in  1851.  at  the  call  of  the  Tabernacle  Church, 
which  desired  to  admit  to  its  membership  three  men  who  had  been 
excluded  from  the  First  Baptist  Church  of  that  citv,  the  latter  body 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL  77 

having  declined  to  join  in  calling  a  mutual  council.  This  council 
comprised  delegates  from  twenty-seven  churches  in  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  Rhode  Island  and  Massachusetts,  and  included  several  men 
of  exceptionally  high  repute  in  the  denomination.  Five  of  the  latter 
as  a  Committee,  drew  up  a  statement  in  the  form  of  Resolutions, 
which  were  adopted  by  the  council  as  expressing  the  true  relation  of 
the  principles  of  independence  and  fellowship  involved. ^^ 

"i.  Resolved,  That  the  independence  of  each  Baptist 
church  is  sacred  and  inviolable,  but  is  also,  as  between 
one  church  and  another,  as  equal  as  it  is  sacred ;  and 
each  church  has  the  authority  given  by  Christ  to  admin- 
ister his  laws,  responsible  to  him  alone. 

"2.  Resolved,  That  it  is  an  established  principle  that 
no  Baptist  church  is  clothed  with  legislative  powers  to  . 
make  new  terms  of  membership  or  fellowship  other  than 
those  already  provided  in  Christ's  code  and  constitution, 
the  New  Testament,  and  that  if  in  any  case  a  church  be 
thought  by  a  sister  church  to  have  already  transcended 
the  ordinary  usages  of  our  churches,  and  these,  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  gospel,  in  the  exclusion  of  members,  and  if 
the  church  so  judging,  after  having  fraternally  employed 
all  proper  and  practicable  means  to  induce  the  exscinding 
church  to  reconsider  their  act,  deem  it  required  by  Chris- 
tian equity,  they  may  proceed  in  the  exercise  of  an  equal 
independency  to  receive  into  their  own  fellowship,  such 
excluded  brethren. 

"3.  Resolved,  That  in  view  of  the  evils  which  must 
ensue  from  such  apparent  collision  of  independent 
churches,  any  church  feeling  itself  called  to  such  recep- 
tion of  the  excluded  of  another  church,  should  move  only 
after  the  most  patient  and  thorough  scrutiny,  and  should 
regard  the  step  as  a  most  grave  one,  to  be  taken  only 
under  circumstances  pressing  and  peculiar. 

"4.  Resolved,  That  on  the  other  hand,  to  acknowl- 
edge no  power  in  any  sister  church  to  rectify  an  over- 
sight or  a  wrong  out  of  the  discipline  of  another  church 
would  be,  to  give  to  any  exscinding  church,  a  sovereignty 
and  infallibility,  as  before  all  sister  churches,  which  is  not 
consistent  with  Christian  equity,  and  Christian  freedom — 
not  consistent  with  the  best  practices  of  our  best  churches 
in  their  best  days — and  not  consistent  with  the  principles 
of  the  New  Testament  and  its  ecclesiastical  polity." 


Watcliman  and  Reflector,  April  24.  1851. 


y8  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN     AMERICA 

This  action  did  not  explicitly  mention  the  council,  but  it  is  obvi- 
ous that  the  second  and  third  resolutions  involve  the  consideration 
of  the  situation  by  a  council  as  a  fraternal  means  of  a  "most  patient 
and  thorough  scrutiny."  The  Resolutions  were  not  considered  legis- 
lative on  the  part  of  the  council,  but  merely  an  expression  of  what 
they  believed  was  the  general  opinion  of  American  Baptists  in  the 
face  of  such  conditions  as  confronted  the  Tabernacle  Church  at 
that  time. 

From  such  a  case,  involving  the  part  of  a  council  in  determining 
the  ecclesiastical  rights  of  excluded  members  who  desire  to  unite 
with  some  other  church,  it  is  a  natural  transition  to  those  instances 
where  councils  have  been  called  to  consider  cases  of  internal  discord, 
when  a  minority  considers  that  it  has  been  unjustly  treated,  perhaps 
even  to  the  extreme  of  exclusion, — but  a  minority  whose  cause  is  not 
espoused  by  another  church.  Too  often,  the  church  concerned  has 
considered  it  a  yielding  of  its  independence  or  even  a  qualified 
acknowledgment  of  wrong-doing  on  its  part  if  it  consents  to  a 
mutual  council.  It  would  be  the  reduction  of  the  majority  to  the 
level  of  the  minority.  From  such  a  feeling  came  the  query  addressed 
to  the  Warren  Association  in  1804 : 

"Whether  a  church,  after  long  forbearance  and  painful 
discipline,  have  deposed  their  pastor,  and  suspended  his 
privileges  for  immoralities;    can  they  consistently  join 
him,  at  his  request,  in  a  mutual  council?" 
Though   in   this   case   the   minority   consisted   of  only   one,   the 
principle  involved  was  the  same  as  though  many  members  had  been 
suspended.     The  Association  saw  the  council  in  its  true  relation  to 
the  local  church  and  also  the  wider  interests  of  the  churches  at  large 
which  were  involved ;   for  an  answer  it 

"Voted,  *  '■'  *  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Associa- 
tion, that  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  divine  rule  for  a 
church,  if  they  see  fit,  to  unite  with  a  person  who  has 
been  excluded  from  them  in  a  mutual  council." 
While   there   have   been   numerous   cases   where   churches   have 
acted  in  accord  with  this  principle,  there  have  been  too  many  in- 
stances where  a  church  has  insisted  upon  its  rights  of  independency, 
and  by  refusing  a  mutual  council  has  left  not  merely  to  the  minority 
but  to  sister  churches  as  well,  no  other  recourse  for  their  guidance 
than  that  to  an  ex  parte  council. 

7.       PROMOTION   OF  LOCAL  OR    GENERAL  DENOMINATIONAL   ACTIVITIES 

AND    WELFARE. 

While  all  councils  are  called  avowedly  for  advice,  from  most  of 
them  is  sought  merely  approval  of  a  line  of  action  which  has  pre- 


THE  FUNCTIONS  OF  THE  COUNCIL 


79 


viously  been  practically  decided  upon  by  the  local  church  which  has 
called  the  council.  Occasionally,  however,  councils  have  been  in- 
vited to  meet  to  confer  with  some  local  church  concerning  a  situation 
in  which  the  course  of  subsequent  action  is  not  yet  marked  out.  In 
the  case  of  the  constitution  of  new  churches,  for  example,  there  is 
generally  an  agreement  on  the  desirability  of  the  project  upon  the 
part  of  those  directly  concerned  before  a  council  is  called.  Under 
such  circumstances  the  council  of  recognition  does  little  more  than 
sanction  a  movement  already  determined  upon.  There  have  been 
cases,  however,  when  the  opinion  of  neighboring  churches  has  been 
sought  not  merely  as  a  matter  of  form  but  from  a  genuine  desire  to 
receive  the  counsel  of  others  who  may  give  sympathetic,  though 
unbiased  advice,  that  the  line  of  action  may  be  the  more  confidently 
marked  out.  Reference  has  already  (page  6i)  been  made  to  the 
case  at  Wallingford.  In  1803,  the  church  at  West  Royalston,  :\Iass., 
called  a  council  to  consider  the  advisability  of  its  reunion  with  the 
Warwick  church,  from  which  it  had  earlier  been  separated.^*  In 
1846,^  the  church  at  Thompson,  Conn.,  referred  to  a  council  the 
question  of  its  division  into  two  new  churches.^=^ 

Other  questions  of  local  importance  have  arisen  which  have  led 
churches  to  seek  the  advice  of  sister  bodies.  Many  times,  probably 
usually,  this  is  done  through  committees  and  informal  conferences 
or  through  the  Association,  but  on  several  occasions  recourse  has 
been  had  to  a  regularly  called  and  organized  council.  Thus  in  1795, 
the  church  at  Wallingford,  Vt.,  voted  to  call  a  council  for  advice  on 
the  location  of  their  meeting-house. ^^^  On  April  29th  of  that  vear, 
the  town  voted 

"to  request  the  council  that  is  to  attend  at  Elisha 
Button's  next  Thursday  *  *  *  to  give  their  advice  in  a 
place  where  a  meeting-house  ought  to  be  built  for  the  ac- 
commodation of  the  town  of  Wallingford,  and  seal  the 
same  and  deliver  it  into  the  hands  of  the  town  clerk,  to 
be  opened  at  a  future  day  to  w-hich  this  meeting  shall 
adjourn." 

The  council  made  its  decision  and  apparently  followed  the  re- 
quest of  the  town ;  at  least,  the  decision  of  the  council  in  the  matter 
appears  in  the  town  records  of  May   11,   1795,  as  well  as  in  the 


"*  Kenny,  Silas.     Hist,  of  the  W.  R.  Bap.  Church,  in  Minutes  of  the  Wen- 
dell Assoc,  1854. 

''  Pinkham.  N.  J.     Discourse  delivered  at  the  looth  Anniv.  of  the  Orcyan- 
ization  of  the  Bap.  Church,  Thompson,  Conn.  ° 

"Archibald,  S.  H.     Hist.  Sketch  of  the  First  Hundred  Years  of  the  Baot 
Church  of  Wallingford,  Vt. 


8o  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN     AMERICA 

church  records.  At  the  adjourned  town-meeting,  however,  there 
was  a  tie  vote  on  the  question  of  adopting  the  recommendation  of 
the  council. 

Mariners'  churches,  from  the  very  nature  of  their  constituency, 
have  special  need  from  time  to  time  of  the  co-operation  and  advice 
of  their   sister   churches.      In    1841,   a   council   of   all    the   Baptist 
churches  in  New  York  City  was  held  to  consider  the  expediency  of 
forming  such  a  church  for  seamen."    The  Mariners'  Church  of  Bos- 
ton in  1858  sought  the  advice  of  a  council  concerning  the  expediency 
of  providing  a  more  suitable  house  of  worship.^^     It  is  evident  that 
weaker  churches,  wdiich  are  to  a  considerable  extent  dependent  upon 
other  churches  for  support,  will  submit  to  the  counsel  of  these  other 
churches  details  which  a  stronger  church  would  settle  for  itself. 
The  council  has  further  been  found  serviceable  in  the  considera- 
.  tion  of  niatters  of  more  general  denominational  interest  than  such 
local  affairs  as  w^e  have  just  been  noticing.     Reference  has  already 
been  made    (page  48)   to  a  council  called  to  consider  the  policy 
to  be  followed  by  the  New  Hampton  Institution,  involving  the  de- 
nominational interests  in  New  Hampshire  and  Vermont,  and  to  that 
called  at  Chester,  Pa.,  to  consider  the  formation  of  a  new  Associa- 
tion.    In  1875,  the  so-called  Centennial  Council  met  in  New  York 
City    to    advise    concerning   a    denominational    observance    of    the 
national  centennial;   it   recommended  the   raising  of  a   Centenary 
Thank-offering   for   the   purposes    of    education,    the   pavment   of 
church  debts,  the  erection  of  church  edifices,  parsonages,^  etc    and 
the  enlargement  of  permanent  missionary  funds.^^ 

The  serviceability  of  the  council  is  very  apparent  from  this  brief 
survey  of  typical  illustrations  of  its  various  functions.  It  is  certainlv 
true  that  one  cannot  appeal  to  the  New  Testament  for  a  precedent  in 
all  if  m  any  of  these  cases;  but  the  New  Testament  does  recognize 
very  distinctly  the  obligations  of  fellowship  and  represents  the 
various  members  of  the  body  of  Christ  as  in  organic  relation  with 
one  another  It  is  this  vital  principle  which  has  underlain  the  evolu- 
tion ot  the  Baptist  council,  not  any  insistence  upon  organization  or  a 
stereotyped  system  of  church  polity. 


'Hist.  Sketch  of  ist  Mariners'  Church,  N.  Y. 

'Watchman  and  Reflector,  Sept.  23,  1858.' 

'Report  of  the  Joint  Committee  of' the  Centennial  Council. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  FURTHER  RELATION  OF  ASSOCIATIONS  AND  COUNCILS. 

_We  have  already  shown  through  numerous  references  to  the 
action  of  Associations  the  general  attitude  of  those  bodies  toward 
councils  and  their  functions,  the  material  presented  being  selected 
almost  solely  with  the  view  to  illustrate  the  historical  development 
of  the  council  as  an  institution  and  its  recognition  as  an  integral  part 
of  the  denominational  polity  of  American  Baptists.  In  the  present 
chapter,  our  purpose  is  to  continue  the  study  of  the  relation  of  the 
Associations  to  the  council,  noting  especially  in  what  ways  they  have 
directed  the  trend  of  the  council's  development  up  to  the  present 
time. 

Even  after  the  council  was  well  established  and  there  was  general 
agreement  as  to  its  normal  place  in  inter-church  relations  and  in 
questions  concerning  the  ministry,  we  find  that  the  Associations  con- 
tinued to  carry  on  functions  that  were  by  that  time  more  usually 
performed  by  councils.  This  is  true  even  of  those  Associations 
which  earliest  recognized  the  practical  advantages  of  the  council 
and  had  recommended  it  to  the  churches  within  their  own  body. 
The  Associations  have  always  considered  themselves  fundamentally 
advisory  councils,  though  with  more  general  functions,  than  those 
which  came  to  be  entrusted  to  the  speciallv  called  body.  In  fact, 
among  the  Baptists  there  have  been  relatively  few  councils  called 
for  what  Dr.  Dexter  called  "light,"  or  for  what  we  have  called  the 
promotion  of  local  or  general  denominational  welfare,  as  the  Asso- 
ciation itself  has  been  found  an  efficient  body  for  consultation  in 
these  matters.  The  activities  of  Associations  have  covered  a  wide 
range,  and  instances  can  be  found  where  some  Association  has  done 
almost  everything  that  a  council  has  been  called  upon  to  do.  Many 
churches  have  had  no  other  formal  recognition  than  their  admission 
mto  an  Association.  So,  too,  Associations  have  virtually  disfellow- 
shipped  churches;  for  as  we  have  seen,  while  membership  in  an 
Association  is  a  voluntary  relationship,  expulsion  from  an  Associa- 
tion has  been  considered  as  de  facto  its  denominational  disfellow- 
shipping.^ 

I.  Cf.  action  of  the  Richmond  Conference  in  1804.  The  previous  year 
a  committee  was  appointed  to  visit  the  Cambridge  church  and  labor  with 
It :  the  committee  reported  to  the  Association  that  the  church  refused  to  hear 

81 


82  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

Associations  have  been  obliged  occasionally  to  take  steps  toward 
the  harmonizing  of  factions  within  a  church,  as  when  each  of  two 
factions  claims  to  be  the  church,  sending  messengers  to  the  annual 
meeting ;  under  such  circumstances,  it  is  necessary  for  the  Associa- 
tion itself  to  decide  which  set  of  messengers,  if  either,  is  entitled  to 
sit  in  its  meeting.  So  also  Associations  have  been  forced  to  act 
when  they  have  found  their  own  sessions  disturbed  or  their  peace 
threatened  by  discord  between  two  churches,  each  belonging  to  their 
membership.-  One  of  the  original  purposes  of  the  Philadelphia 
Association,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  to  harmonize  differences  be- 
tween a  local  church  and  some  of  its  members,  a  principle  readily 
extended  to  differences  between  churches. 

There  have  been  not  a  few  cases  where  councils  for  ordination 
have  been  called  in  connection  with  the  meeting  of  an  Association, 
generally  for  the  sake  of  convenience.  While  in  some  cases  the 
records  or  notices  are  ambiguous,  there  have  been  a  few  instances 
when  the  Association  itself  has  acted  as  an  ordination  council.  Ref- 
erence has  already  been  made  to  the  New  Hampshire  Association  in 
1808,  when  after  adjournment,  the  same  body  met  as  a  council  and 
ordained  an  evangelist.  In  1825,  during  the  first  meeting  of  the 
Wendell  Association  (Mass.),  three  men  were  ordained  as  were  two 
men  at  the  meeting  of  the  French  Broad  Association  (N.  Car.),  that 
same  year.  The  Chemung  Association  in  1810  resolved  itself  into 
an  ordination  council,  and  in  1831,  the  Ashford  Conference  did  like- 
wise. In  1868,  on  invitation  of  the  Richland  (111.)  church,  the 
ministers  and  messengers  composing  the  Springfield  Association  met 
as  a  council,  in  connection  with  its  annual  meeting,  to  consider  the 
propriety  of  ordaining  a  candidate  to  the  ministry.^  In  other  cases, 
the  Association  itself  has  acted  without  transforming  itself  by  any 
formal  vote  into  a  council.  Thus  in  1831,  the  ministers  and  dele- 
gates of  the  Westfield  Conference  (Mass.)  met  in  response  to  a 
letter  missive  sent  to  that  body  by  the  First  Baptist  Church  in  West- 


and  that  its  visibility  was  at  an  end ;  whereupon  the  Association  voted  "that 
the  hand  of  fellowship  be  withdrawn."  Cro^^ker,  Henry.  Hist.  Sketch  of 
the  Lamoille  (Vt.)    Bapt.  Association,  1796-1896. 

^  In  1799,  the  Georgia  Association,  upon  hearing  of  "an  unhappy  dif- 
ference" between  two  of  the  churches  requested  an  elder  to  address  a  letter 
to  one  of  them  "expressive  of  the  views  of  the  Association  in  relation  to 
the  difficulty."  In  1806,  it  appointed  a  committee,  in  response  to  the  request 
from  the  church  at  Sardis  for  advice  in  a  dispute  between  that  church  and 
the  Salem  church,  to  visit  the  churches  and  labor  for  a  reconciliation.  Mer- 
cer, Jesse.  _  "A  Hist,  of  the  Georgia  Bapt.  Assoc."  Other  cases  have  already 
been  mentioned   (pp.  39,  40). 

'Walker,  E.  S.     Hist,  of  the  Springfield  Bapt.  Assoc. 


THE     FURTHER     RELATION  83 

field.*  Two  cases  in  the  Philadelphia  Association  will  be  referred  to 
presently. 

Associations  have  also  taken  action  in  the  deposition  of  ministers, 
without  recourse  to  a  special  council  for  that  purpose.  To  refer  to  a 
few  specific  cases, — in  1807,  the  Vermont  Association  deposed  a  min- 
ister. In  181 3,  the  Fairfield  (Vt.)  Association  appointed  a  commit- 
tee to  inquire  into  a  church  and  the  character  of  its  former  minister ; 
in  1818,  it  appointed  a  committee  to  examine  into  the  character 
and  standing  of  a  minister  who  had  been  deposed  by  a  church. 
These  last  two  cases  are  not  strictly  cases  of  deposition  by  an  Asso- 
ciation, but  they  reveal  the  easy  possibility  of  the  absorption  of  the 
functions  of  the  council  by  the  Association.^  In  1822,  the  Georgia 
Association  was  appealed  to  by  the  minority  of  a  church  which  ad- 
hered to  the  minister  whom  the  church,  by  a  majority  vote,  had 
deposed  from  the  ministry  and  expelled  from  its  own  membership. 
The  Association  considered  the  case,  but  not  only  refused  after  in- 
vestigation to  recognize  the  minority  as  the  church,  but  approved 
the  action  of  the  majority  in  deposing  the  minister.*'  In  1825,  the 
]vluscle  Shoal  Association  (Ala.)  adopted  the  report  of  a  committee 
pronouncing  a  certain  preacher  in  disorder,  and  recommending  that 
he  be  no  longer  recognized  as  a  preacher  of  the  Gospel.'^  In  1832, 
the  Eastern  Maine  Association  sanctioned  the  act  of  a  church  in  de- 
posing a  minister.^ 

Notwithstanding  these  instances  and  others  which  might  be 
mentioned,  it  remains  true  that  it  has  been  the  exception  that  cases 
which  concern  the  denominational  standing  of  churches  or  min- 
isters have  been  submitted  to  the  Associations.  These  bodies  them- 
selves, as  we  have  seen,  considered  reference  to  a  council  as  more 
fitting,  and  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  number  of  such  cases  so  re- 
ferred far  exceeds  the  number  acted  upon  by  Associations.  The 
fear  lest  the  latter  bodies  should  develop  into  synods,  with  legis- 
lative and  even  coercive  powers,  has  made  the  majority  of  the  Bap- 
tists prefer  the  council,  in  spite  of  that  looseness  in  the  relation  of 


*  Christian  Secretary,  Jan.  22,  1831. 

°  Among  the  Congregationalists,  the  Association  grants  the  license 
to  preach  and  after  ordination,  the  ministerial  standing  rests  in  the  Asso- 
ciation, which  has  the  power  of  suspension  and  deposition.  Councils  are 
held  for  ordination,  though  in  Sept.,  1904,  the  Bay  Association  of  Califor- 
nia, at  the  request  of  one  of  its  churches,  examined  two  candidates  already 
licensed    by   the    Association    and    recommended    their   ordination. 

^  Mercer.     "History  of  Georgia  Assoc." 

'  Holcombe,  Hosea.  "History  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Baptists 
in  Alabama." 

^Millet,  Joshua.     "A  History  of  the  Baptists  in  Maine." 


84  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

any  specific  council  to  the  denomination,  which  has  especially  ex- 
posed the  latter  to  the  danger  of  being  misled  by  packed  councils. 
.This  has  been  a  very  real  danger  and  still  exists,  to  judge  by  occa- 
sional utterances  in  the  denominational  press;  in  fact,_  the  most 
vulnerable  spot  in  the  whole  institution  is  the  composition  of  the 
individual  council,;  who  is  to  guarantee  to  the  larger  fellowship  of 
the  churches  the  integrity  of  its  composition  and  its  competency  to 
render  impartial  and  conclusive  advice?  It  has  been  the  conviction 
that  the  rights  of  the  larger  fellowship  of  the  churches  needed  pro- 
tection from  unfairly  constituted  councils  that  has  led  to  the  most 
significant  development  of  the  council  since  the  institution  has  won 
its  acceptance  as  a  part  of  the  denominational  polity, — namely,  its 
closer  co-ordination  with  the  Association,  which  from  its  position  in 
the  denomination,  its  relatively  well  defined  boundaries,  the  regu- 
larity of  its  meetings  and  the  publicity  of  its  records,  affords  almost 
the  only  opportunity  for  even  a  quasi-denominational  oversight  over 
the  action  of  local  councils.  The  general  feeling  that  as  a  rule  the 
churches  in  the  same  Association  as  the  church  calling  the  council 
should  be  included  among  the  churches  invited,  has  been  referred 
to.®  In  fact,  from  the  very  form  which  inter-church  fellowship  had 
developed,  it  was  most  natural  for  the  associational  unit  to  present 
itself  as  the  normal  one  for  the  council.  Similarly,  the  Association 
offered  itself  as  the  most  obvious  and  convenient  intermediary  be- 
tween the  local  council  and  the  churches  at  large.  The  problem  is, 
however,  to  make  use  of  the  Association  and  not  have  as  the  inevit- 
able consequence  the  elimination  of  the  council  as  superfluous.  Such 
a  result  would  change  the  status  of  the  Association ;  at  least  it  would 
enlarge  its  usual  functions  and  would  savor  too  much  of  presby- 
terianism  to  satisfy  the  Baptists,  who  are  devoted  to  independency 
as  the  biblical  polity  and  as  more  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the 
Gospel.  Yet  the  possibility  of  making  some  use  of  the  Association, 
by  giving  it  some  co-ordinate  or  supervisory  power  with  the  coun- 
cil, probably  accounts  for  the  continued  activity  of  the  Association 
in  matters  which  had  come  to  be  referred  more  usually  to  special 
councils,  and  for  the  action  of  the  Philadelphia  Association,  together 
with  the  more  recent  action  of  other  Associations,  which  must  now 
engage  our  attention. 


"■'The  recommendation  adopted  by  many  of  our  New  England  Associa- 
tions that  any  chnrch  in  calling  a  council  should  include  in  the  letters  missive 
the  churches  of  the  Association  to  which  it  belongs  is  based  on  too  sound  a 
principle  to  be  lightly  set  aside.  The  decisions  of  a  council  composed  of 
churches  selected  because  of  their  relations  to  the  question  to  come  before 
it  inevitably  fail  to  carry  the  weight  to  which  the  findings  of  such  a  body 
should  be  entitled." — Watchman,  Jan.  21,  1904. 


THE     FURTHER     RELATION  85 

THE  PLANS  OF  THE  PHILADELPHIA  ASSOCIATION,   1837  AND   184I. 

In  its  very  inception  and  throughout  its  history,  the  Philadelphia 
Association  has  been  considered  by  the  churches  composing  it  as  an 
advisory  council ;  its  records  contain  numerous  references  to  matters 
which  might  have  been  submitted  by  the  local  church  immediately 
concerned  to  a  specially  called  council,  but  which  were  referred  in- 
stead to  the  Association.  As  we  have  seen,  there  is  nothing  unique 
in  this,  and  in  general,  the  attitude  of  this  original  and  in  some  ways 
most  prominent  Association  toward  the  council  was  not  different  es- 
sentially from  that  of  other  Associations.  It  has  advised  that  councils 
be  held ;  it  has  itself  acted  as  a  council. 

It  was  in  temporary  efforts,  (which  may  be  divided  into  two 
episodes),  to  safeguard  the  ministerial  office,  that  the  Philadelphia 
Association  took  action  looking  tow^ard  the  closer  co-ordination  of 
that  body  with  the  council.  One  of  its  earliest  votes,  passed  in  1723, 
reads  as  follows  : — 

"Agreed,  that  the  proposal  drawn  by  the  several 
ministers,  and  signed  by  many  others,  in  reference  to  the 
examination  of  all  gifted  brethren  and  ministers  that 
come  in  here  from,  other  places,  be  duly  put  in  practice, 
we  having  found  the  evil  of  neglecting  a  true  and  previ- 
ous scrutiny  in  those  affairs." 

The  latest  instances  when  the  Association  was  itself  asked  to  ex- 
amine candidates  for  ordination,  with  no  reference  to  any  other 
council,  were  apparently  in  1833  and  1836.  On  each  of  these  occa- 
sions, the  Association  appointed  committees  to  examine  the  candi- 
date and  then  arranged  for  the  ordination  services  upon  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  committees. 

The  looseness  of  the  practice  of  the  churches  in  the  important 
matter  of  ordination  had  given  opportunity  for  some  unworthy  men 
to  gain  ministerial  standing,  whose  later  careers  not  only  blighted 
the  Christian  cause  in  the  community  where  their  sins  had  come  to 
light  but  had  cast  reproach  upon  the  whole  sisterhood  of 
churches.  It  was  in  the  hope  of  reducing  if  not  eliminating  the  pos- 
sibility of  such  evils  that  led  the  church  of  Lower  Merion,  in  1835, 
to  address  the  following  query  to  the  Association : 

"Cannot  a  more  consistent  and  uniform  method  of 
licensing  and  ordaining  ministers  be  recommended  to  the 
churches  ?" 

This  was  referred  to  a  committee  of  five,  with  instructions  to 
report,  if  practicable,  at  that  session  of  the  Association.  The  com- 
mittee felt  the  need  of  a  longer  consideration  of  the  question,  so  it 


86  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

was  requested  to  report  early  at  the  next  meeting.  In  1836,  how- 
ever, the  committee  asked  for  more  time,  and  another  member  was 
added  to  it.  It  is  evident  that  the  Association  considered  the  matter 
one  of  grave  importance.  Although  the  question  had  not  been  de- 
cided, the  Circular  Letter  of  that  year  referred  to  the  licensing  of 
ministers,  saying, 

"It  is  the  privilege  as  well  as  the  duty  of  every 
church,  when  called  in  the  providence  of  God  to  approve 
of  the  public  gifts,  to  summon  to  her  aid  the  counsel  of 
the  wise  and  experienced,  and  then  participate  with  them 
in  their  deliberations ;  but  further  than  this  she  should 
never  venture." 

In  1837,  the  committee  appointed  in  1835  brought  in  its  report, 
setting  forth  the  following  facts  and  principles  bearing  upon  the 
question  of  licensing  and  ordaining  ministers : 

(i)  The  denomination  at  large  desired  and  demanded  an  es- 
sential reform  in  the  matter. 

(2)  The  laxity  of  the  prevailing  method  was  recognized  and 
deplored. 

(3)  Some  churches  are  in  such  a  feeble  state  as  to  be  incom- 
petent to  decide  on  the  adequacy  of  ministerial  talent  and  will  be 
guided  too  much  by  personal  considerations. 

(4)  While  acknowledging  the  independency  of  the  local  church, 
the  committee  asserted  that  her  power  had  limitations  in  the  act  of 
consecrating  and  sanctioning  her  gifts  to  the  Gospel  ministry. 

(5)  If  the  power  of  licensing  and  ordaining  lies  in  the  ministry 
(as  some  hold),  it  can  be  exercised  only  at  the  instance  of  the 
church;  if  it  lies  in  the  church  (as  others  hold),  she  must  use  it  in 
a  way  which  shall  tend  to  the  general  good.  If  it  lies  in  neither 
separately,  but  in  the  two  jointly,  ordination  should  be  a  ministerial 
act  at  the  request  of  the  church. 

(6)  The  importance  of  guarding  the  very  entrance  to  the  Gos- 
pel ministry  makes  advisable  a  similar  participation  of  power  in  the 
act  of  bestowing  license. 

In  addition  to  these  general  considerations  embodied  in  the  re- 
port, the  committee  proposed  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolu- 
tions : 

"Resolved,  That  this  Association  elect  annually  by 
ballot  a  committee  of  three  to  unite  with  a  committee 
selected  by  any  church  of  this  Association  desirous  of 
licensing  or  ordaining  one  of  their  members  to  the  work 
of  the  ministry ;  the  concurrence  of  one  or  more  of  the 
Associational  committee,  when  all  have  been  dulv  noti- 


THE     FURTHER     RELATION  87 

fied,  shall  be  regarded  as  satisfactory,  and  shall  com- 
mend said  candidate  to  the  favor  of  all  the  churches. 

"Resolved,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  joint 
committee,  when  sitting  in  council  with  any  church,  to 
make  an  impartial  inquiry  into  the  moral  and  religious 
character  of  the  candidate,  to  examine  into  his  call  to 
the  ministry,  his  theological  views,  and  his  qualifications 
for  a  responsibility  so  vastly  important ;  moreover,  they 
shall  embrace  an  opportunity  of  hearing  him  preach,  and 
if  in  their  judgment  he  is  a  suitable  person  for  the  min- 
istry, they  shall  recommend  him  accordingly  to  the 
church,  and  participate  with  them  in  the  licensing  or 
ordination. 

"Resolved,  That  any  church  calling  a  brother  to  or- 
dination, shall  apprize  the  committee  of  their  desires,  at 
least  two  weeks  previously  to  the  time  the  council  are  to 
meet. 

"Resolved,  That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Associa- 
tional  committee  to  make  an  annual  report  to  the  Asso- 
ciation, of  the  number  they  have  examined  for  license, 
their  names,  and  the  churches  to  which  they  may  belong ; 
and  also,  the  names  of  those  in  whose  ordination  they 
have  participated. 

"Resolved,  That  the  churches  be  most  affectionately 
invited  and  recommended  to  sustain  the  order  here  com- 
mended to  their  notice." 

A  resolution  was  offered  that  the  churches  be  asked  to  consider 
the  recommendation  of  the  committee  and  report  to  the  Associa- 
tion at  its  next  meeting.  After  a  long  discussion,  the  report  was 
referred  back  to  the  committee  to  which  five  members  were  added. 
They  then  reported  the  matter  agam  to  the  A.ssociation,  which 
adopted  the  five  resolutions,  and  elected  three  brethren  to  serve  on 
the  committee  thus  established. 

It  is  not  at  all  surprising  to  read  in  the  Minutes  of  the  next  year 
that  the  plan  was  "disapproved  of  by  some  of  our  churches,  so  that 
unanimity  cannot  be  secured  in  carrying  it  into  effect,"  and  that  con- 
sequently it  was  voted  "That  the  appointment  of  said  committee  be 
dispensed  with."  The  plan  was  too  great  a  departure  from  the 
customary  method :  it  utterly  ignored  the  council,  which  was  already 
a  well-established  institution,  substituting  for  it  the  Associational 
committee  of  three  to  examine  into  the  qualifications  of  the  candi- 
date. According  to  the  wording  of  the  first  resolution,  the  approval 
of   one   member   of   this    committee  was   sufficient   to   warrant  the 


88  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN     AMERICA 

church  to  proceed  to  the  ordination;  the  ordination  would  be  vaHd 
and  the  man  would  be  recommended  as  though  by  the  Association 
itself,  though  the  other  two  members  of  the  committee  might  con- 
sider the  man  utterly  unworthy.  The  approving  member  might  even 
be  a  member  of  the  church  asking  advice,  which  would  place  the 
whole  question  of  the  ordination  and  its  acceptance  by  the  Associa- 
tion within  the  control  of  the  one  church.  Possibly  the  intent  of 
the  resolution  was  to  make  one  member  of  the  committee  a  quorum, 
provided  all  the  members  were  duly  notified.  The  refusal  of  the 
Association  to  refer  the  matter  to  the  churches  for  their  opinion, 
before  adopting  it  as  the  method  approved  by  that  body  itself,  nat- 
urally aroused  some  prejudice  against  the  plan  and  lent  some  color  to 
the  charge  that  the  Association  was  legislating  for  the  churches ; 
yet  the  plan  was  only  suggested  and  recommended  to  the  churches. 
As  adopted,  it  permitted  such  churches  as  approved  it  to  make  use 
of  it  immediately. 

Although  the  failure  of  the  scheme  is  not  surprising — the  marvel 
is  that  it  was  passed  at  all — the  ending  of  this  first  episode  is  an 
anticlimax,  after  the  long  consideration  of  the  question  by  the  com- 
mittee appointed  in  1835  ^^'^^  ^^^^  urgency  of  the  Association  in  the 
adoption  of  the  new  plan  in  1837.  After  dispensing  with  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  committee,  the  Association  merely  ''earnestly  and 
affectionately  recommended  to  the  churches  who  are  about  to  license 
or  ordain  any  member,  that  they  invite  some  of  the  Pastors  and 
Deacons  of  the  neighboring  churches  to  participate  in  their  delibera- 
tions." A  very  mild  resolution,  indeed,  asking  that  the  obligations 
of' fellowship  be  recognized  in  the  matter  of  licensing  as  well  as  in 
ordaining  preachers ;  but  it  almost  raises  the  question  if  the  Phila- 
delphia Association  had  temporarily  forgotten  that  there  was  such 
an  institution  among  the  Baptists  as  the  council. 

The  action  of  1838  may  have  been  the  result  of  a  sense  of  dis- 
appointment that  the  churches  had  not  taken  kindly  to  the  well-in- 
tended effort  at  reform.  The  need  of  a  solution  of  the  problem  was 
still  felt,  however,  and  the  matter  appears  again  in  the  Minutes  of 
1841.  The  Circular  Letter  of  that  year,  in  a  paragraph  on  ''The 
ordaining  and  licensing  of  ministers,"  in  referring  to  certain  abuses, 
remarks : 

"To  restrain- the  evils  arising  from  this  source,  and 
to  promote  harmony,  it  is  very  important  that  some  gen- 
eral rule  be  acted  upon,  or  if  that  cannot  be,  let  each 
church  and  each  minister  more  deeply  feel  the  need  of 
caution  in  a  matter  so  important." 


THE     FURTHER     RELATION  9 


Further,  the  Association  referred  to  a  <=7"'"^f,„^°  ""*  °  oose 
letter  of  the  Spruce  St    (Phil.)  c^^-h- re  err  d^    the  very  loose 

:';aaon"S'nim^Ss™'lw    :on™ittrS!:r  in  the  session  reported 
the  folS  resolution,  which  was  unanimously  adopted: 

"Resohed,  That  it  be  recommended  to  the  several 
churches  in  union  with  this  body,  to  incorporate  m  their 
discioline  the  following  regulations :  . 

-in  kl  cases  of  Ikensing  and  ordaining  m.msteis 
and  of  constituting  new  churches,  several  neighboring 
churches  shall  be  requested  to  appoint  '7°  "^^'d  ts-' 
gates,  who  shall  constitute  a  Council  of  advice  and  as 

''""'The  Philadelphia  Baptist  Association  shall  annually 
appoint  five  ministering  brethren,  who  shall  be  im  ted 
to  attend  on  such  occasions,  and  compose  part  of  said 
Council." 
Tt  is  to  be  noted  that  this  was  an  attempt  to  secure  greater  uni- 

Its  committee,  .which,  however  was  no  'o  /rom  ->^ -^^^^^^^, 
right  tin  1  invited  °  '^^^^  =;;/■  j^' JV  be  noted  that  this  plan  is 
?o"LtL,f toTase"^f teXt'itution  of  new  churches  as  well  as 

*^rwat^:o?'^ute™,ex^°ir"tlr  the  plan  was  really  put  into 

-"ef  A    h-eli?"^^^^^^^^^^^ 

rafalste-^dSllth:  :f  tln,tion|  t^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^  examine d^two 

ro;tatio'^-of^:nVc=%;^  51^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

had  assisted  at  another  ordination.    The  report  conchides, 

"Others  your  committee  learn,  have  during  the 
eccleSl^cal  ,'ear,  been  licensed  by  -me  o  the  chu^^^^^^^^^ 
without  complying  with  the  recommendation  of  the  As 

''''•'In "conclusion,  your  committee  would  recommend  to 
the  churches  wishing  to  license  or  o'^dain  candidates    o 
the  ministry  to  give  at  least  two  weeks    notice  to  the 
AssodaTonal    Committee-and    in    no    -se    to   pu^^^^^^^ 
before  calling  the  committee,  that  an  ordination  will  take 


90 


BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 


place  on  a  specified  day — your  committee  being  of  the 
opinion  that  on  a  previous  day  the  candidate  should  be 
examined,  and  a  sermon  by  him  delivered,  and  then  the 
arrangement   be   made   for   ordination   on   some    future 
day." 
The  report  of  the  committee  was  concurred  in. 
In  1844,  the  committee  reported  that  they  had  heard  three  ap- 
plications for  licenses, 

*  *  *  "but  from  the  fact  that  .churches  and 
brethren  have  misapprehended  the  object  of  our  appoint- 
ment, and  opposed  it,  we  have  found  the  fulfilment  of 
our  duty  attended  with  more  pain  than  pleasure. 

"But  we  are  deely  impressed  with  the  importance  of 
having  some  protection  from  an  incautious  sending  forth 
of  men  unfit  for  the  great  work  of  the  Gospel  ministry." 
So  the  second  plan  of  the  Philadelphia  Association  met  a  fate 
similar  to  that  of  the  first,  and  in  1845,  this  second  episode  came  to 
an  end,  when  it  was 

"Resolved,  That  this  Association  recommend  most  af- 
fectionately and  earnestly  to  the  churches  composing  this 
body,  in  no  case  to  give  license  to  persons  to  preach  the 
Gospel  without  first  asking,  and  if  possible,  securing  the 
advice  of  at  least  three  neighboring,  and  if  practicable 
the  most  experienced  aged  ministers." 
If  this  resolution  is  compared  with  that  of  1837,  it  will  be  seen 
that  it  is  even  more  mild  in  tone.    The  Philadelphia  Association  had 
failed  to  solve  the  pi^oblem,  and  was  apparently  content  with  failure. 

ADVISORY   COMMITTEES. 

The  real  significance  of  the  two  plans  adopted  but  soon  aban- 
doned by  the  Philadelphia  Association  was  in  the  endeavor  to  use 
the  Association  as  an  intermediary  between  the  individual  council 
and  the  denomination  at  large  for  the  special  purpose  of  safeguard- 
ing the  interests  of  the  latter.  The  present  writer  has  been  unable 
to  trace  any  definite  historical  development  from  these  plans  of  the 
oldest  Association,  but  the  later  attempts  of  various  Associations  to 
improve  the  efficiency  of  the  council  have,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  been 
along  lines  closely  parallel  to  the  Philadelphia  plan  of  1841,  viz.,  the 
appointment  of  an  advisory  committee  on  councils,  not,  however,  to 
sit  in  the  council  itself  as  representative  of  the  Association,  but  to 
insure  a  competent  council  and  to  conserve  the  welfare  of  the  larger 
sisterhood  of  churches.  As  the  weakness  of  the  council  had  been 
especially  felt  in  its  relation  to  the  admission  of  candidates  to  the 


THE     FURTHER     RELATION  9I 

ministry,  it  has  sometimes  been  considered  sufficient  if  the  functions 
'  of  an  advisory  committee  have  not  extended  beyond  an  oversight 
over  ordination,  though  it  is  really  the  competency  of  the  special 
local  council  which  is  in  question. 

We  have  just  said  that  no  definite  connection  of  the  later  with 
the  earlier  plans  appears ;  nor  is  it  easy  to  trace  the  historical  rela- 
tion of  the  later  plans  to  one  another.^"  In  the  case  of  the  plan  of  the 
Chicago  Association,  we  have  virtually  a  substitute  for  a  Permanent 
Council,  the  effort  to  introduce  the  latter  having  been  defeated.  It 
seems  better,  however^  to  consider  the  Advisory  Committee  before 
turning  to  the  Permanent  Council,  which  we  reserve  for  the  next 
chapter.  For  our  purpose  in  this  study  of  the  council  as  an  institu- 
tion, it  will  be  sufficient  to  sketch  briefly  the  history  of  two  or  three 
of  the  plans  for  Advisory  Committees  which  are  in  use  to-day,  and 
which  will  show,  in  typical  examples,  how  the  effort  is  being  made 
to  use  the  Association  in  conjunction  with  the  council  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  denominational  interests. 

It  was  in  1891  that  the  plan  of  an  associational  ordination  com- 
mittee was  first  proposed  to  the  Michigan  Baptist  State  Convention. 
After  a  somewhat  impassioned  debate,  the  matter  was  tabled  for  a 
year;  meanwhile,  the  opinion  of  the  several  Associations  was  to  be 
ascertained.  In  1892,  it  was  found  that  sixteen  out  of  twenty-one 
Associations  had  taken  action ;  of  these,  six  approved  and  one  other 
endorsed  the  general  purpose  of  the  proposition,  but  nine  disap- 
proved, so  for  the  time  the  matter  was  dropped.  In  1896,  however, 
the  Saginaw  Valley  Association  appointed  an  ordination  committee 
and  voted  to  ask  the  State  Convention  to  advise  the  other  Associa- 
tions to  take  similar  action.  At  its  meeting  in  October  of  the  same 
year,  the  State  Convention  unanimously  adopted  the  proposal,  which 
was  confirmed  by  the  ratification  of  the  plan  by  most  of  the  Associa- 
tions. The  Standing  Resolutions,  under  which  the  Ordination  Com- 
mittees do  their  work,  appear  in  the  Minutes  of  the  State  Conven- 
tion, together  with  an  explanatory  note,  both  of  which  are  inserted 
here. 

"Section  i.     This  Association  shall  appoint  a  com- 
mittee of  five,  before  whom  all  candidates  for  the  min- 


"  Where  a  plan  has  been  adopted  through  concerted  action,  as  in 
Michigan,  the  historical  connection  can  be  traced.  Yet  here,  when  we 
try  to  trace  the  connection  with  earlier  associational  committees,  we  find  it 
merely  in  the  casual  remark  of  a  minister  as  he  was  passing  through  De- 
troit, that  some  associations  in  New  York  had  an  ordination  committee. 
Cf.  an  article  m  "The  Standard,"  March  11,  1905,  by  C.  E.  Conley,  who  in 
a  letter  to  the  present  writer,  says :  "The  remark  gave  me  the  suggestion, 
which   I  finally  developed  into  the  present   '  usage '  in   Michigan." 


92 


BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 


istry  are  expected  to  appear  for  examination,  prior  to  the 
call  of  a  council  for  ordination. 

"The  said  committee  is  to  institute  inquiry  into  the 
past  history,  moral  character,  religious  life,  literary  and 
theological  attainments,  and  general  fitness  of  the  candi- 
date seeking  ordination  to  the  Christian  ministry. 

"Sec.  2.  That  we  advise  the  churches  composing 
this  Association  to  make  no  arrangements  for  the  ordina- 
tion of  any  man,  until  after  he  has  passed  the  preliminary 
examination  of  this  committee,  and  received  their  recom- 
mendation for  ordination. 

"Sec.  3.  That  the  church  calling  the  formal  council 
of  ordination  invite  all  other  churches  within  the  bounds 
of  the  Association  to  send  delegates  to  sit  with  them  in 
the  council;  that  the  invitation  be  issued  at  least  three' 
weeks  before  the  date  set  for  the  meeting  of  the  council, 
and  that  no  delegates,  nor  churches,  outside  the  Associa- 
tion, be  invited  to  vote  in  said  council. 

"(The  above  resolution  was  so  changed  by  the  Kala- 
mazoo River  Association  as  to  include  knowledge  of 
Systematic  Theology  among  the  points  upon  which  the 
committee  is  to  institute  inquiry,  and  by  St.  Joseph  Val- 
ley and  Alpha  Associations,  so  as  to  enable  the  church 
calling  the  council  to  invite  churches  beyond  the  bounds 
of  the  Association  to  send  delegates  empowered  to  vote. 
*  *  *  (as),  owing  to  the  small  number  of  churches 
composing  the  Associations,  they  might  not  otherwise  be 
able  to  secure  a  proper  representative  council.)" 

In  1898,  the  Long  Island  (N.  Y.)  Association,  after  having 
voted  the  previous  year  to  table  resolutions  calling  for  the  annual 
appointment  of  "a  committee  of  nine,  to  be  known  as  a  Committee 
on  Ordination,"  adopted,  by  a  vote  of  96  to  8,  the  following  resolu- 
tion, which  was  preceded  by  a  preamble : 

"Resolved,  That  the  Moderator  of  the  Association 
shall  annually  appoint  a  committee  of  nine  brethren  (six 
pastors  and  three  laymen),  to  be  known  as  "The  Ad- 
visory Committee."  It  shall  be  the  function  of  this  com- 
mittee to  counsel  with  the  churches  or  brethren  connected 
with  the  Association  who  may  purpose  the  calling  of  a 
council. 

"Upon  the  invitation  of  the  church  or  brethren,  the 
Advisory  Committee  shall  consider  the  occasion  and  in- 
vestigate the  circumstances.     Thev   shall   then   counsel 


THE     FURTHER     RELATION  93 

with  reference  to  the  wisdom  and  expediency  of  con- 
vening a  council. 

"If  the  proposed  council  be  for  the  ordination  of  a 
brother  to  the  work  of  the  Gospel  ministry,  the  Advisory 
Committee  shall  first  carefully  examine  into  the  character, 
doctrinal  convictions  and  ministerial  gifts  of  the  brother, 
and  they  shall  advise  both  the  candidate  and  the  church 
with  reference  to  the  calling  of  the  council. 

"We  recommend  that  the  churches  of  the  Association 
purposing  the  calling  of  councils  shall  first  invite  the 
consideration  and  advice  of  the  Advisory  Committee,  and 
incorporate  in  the  official  call  for  the  council  the  com- 
mendations of  the  Committee. 

"The  purpose  of  this  resolution  is  not  designed  to 
preclude  the  privilege  of  any  aggrieved  brethren  who 
may  believe  that  they  have  just  cause  for  the  calling  of 
an  ex-parte  council. 

"Nor  is  it  designed  to  contravene  the  privilege  of  any 
church  or  brethren  appealing  directly  to  the  churches,  ac- 
cording to  Baptist  custom." 

It  is  at  once  evident  that  this  is  not  essentially  different  from 
the  Michigan  plan,  except  that  it  recommends  that  the  Committee 
be  consulted  in  all  cases  when  a  church  is  considering  the  calling 
of  a  council,  not  merely  for  the  preliminary  examination  of  a  candi- 
date for  ordination. 

The  functions  of  the  Advisory  Committee  on  Councils  of  the 
Chicago  Association  are  practically  the  same  as  those  of  the  same 
Committee  in  the  Long  Island  Association.  It  was  first  appointed 
in  1900,  upon  the  recommendation  of  a  committee  to  which  certain 
queries  of  the  Centennial  Church  concerning  councils  had  been  re- 
ferred. As  already  mentioned,  the  Advisory  Committee  in  this 
Association  is  virtually  a  substitute  for  the  Permanent  or  Annual 
Council,  which  had  failed  of  adoption  a  few  years  earlier.  In  spite 
of  the  limitations  upon  the  functions  of  this  Committee,  from  its 
beginning  it  has  been  held  in  suspicion  by  some,  and  at  the  meeting 
of  the  Association  in  1904,  it  was  voted  to  ask  the  opinion  of  the 
churches  as  to  its  continuance.^^ 


"  At  the  meeting  of  the  Association  in  1905,  the  report  of  the  Advisory 
Committee  on  Councils  was  presented  and  adopted.  Its  statement  as  to  its 
own  status  was  as  follows : 

"Last  year  a  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  Association  instructing  the 
clerk  to  insert  in  the  call  for  the  meeting  of  1905  the  question  whether  this 
committee  be  continued.     As  a  result  of  this  appeal  to  the  churches,  29  voted 


94  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

It  may  be  said  that  the  advocates  of  the  Advisory  Committee 
quite  generally  express  their  satisfaction  with  the  practical  work- 
ings of  the  plan.  Theoretically,  it  may  seem  a  needless  addition  to 
our  polity,  to  expect  a  church  to  ask  advice  on  the  question  whether 
it  should  ask  advice  or  not ;  yet  the  scheme  does  protect  the  churches 
from  an  undue  multiplicity  of  councils  and  in  the  case  of  candidates 
for  ordination,  the  preliminary  examination  may  spare  an  unpre- 
pared candidate  a  more  pubHc  embarrassment.  Opposition  to  it 
has  been  based  on  a  theory  of  rigid  independency  rather  than  upon 
any  criticism  of  the  actual  working  of  the  plan.  Perhaps  the  severest 
criticism  might  come  from  those  who  approve  of  the  purpose  of  the 
Advisory  Committee,  but  believe  that  in  the  end  it  is  wiser  to  handle 
the  problem  of  the  relation  of  the  council  to  the  denomination  in  a 
direct  fashion,  rather  than  by  indirection.  Moreover,  some  feel 
that  the  plan  concentrates  in  a  few  individuals  too  great  a  restrictive 
power,  and  in  case  the  Advisory  Committee  should  be  by  a  bare  ma- 
jority adverse  to  the  calling  of  a  council,  the  possibility  of  confusion 
is  very  evident.  Even  when,  as  in  the  Long  Island  Association,  the 
plan  explicitly  reserves  the  privilege  of  any  church  to  appeal  di- 
rectly to  the  churches,  there  would  be  uncertainty  on  the  part  of  the 


for  and  9  against  its  continuance.  The  vote  was  not  large.  We  take  it 
that  the  nine  votes  against  it  represent  almost  all  if  not  all  the  active  opposi- 
tion. Of  the  remaining  large  number  of  churches  not  voting  we  conclude 
that  they  had  not  known  enough  of  the  work  of  the  committee  to  pass  judg- 
ment upon  it.  The  work  of  the  committee  has  not  been  conspicuous  and  we 
are  not  surprised  that  many  of  our  people  know  nothing  about  it. 

"From  the  first  there  has  been  opposition  on  the  part  of  a  few  of  the 
brethren.  The  opposition  is  based  so  far  as  we  can  discover  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  its  continuance  jeopardizes  the  principles  of  Baptist  independency. 
The  committee  has  been  in  existence  long  enough  to  settle  the  question 
whether  any  of  those  principles  which  constitute  the  basis  of  our  denomina- 
tional life  are  endangered  by  its  continuance.  During  its  entire  history  of 
five  years  we  have  not  known  of  a  single  specific  instance  in  which  its  course 
has  been  criticised.  It  has  never  assumed  any  authority.  It  has  confined 
itself  to  the  giving  of  advice  and  this  advice  has  been  given  only  when  asked 
for." 

A  resolution,  "that  the  negative  vote  of  a  large  minority  of  the  churches, 
representing  a  membership  of  3.398,  with  right  on  this  floor  to  71  votes,  calls 
for  a  readjustment  in  the  matter  of  the  Advisory  Committee  on  Councils. 
We  therefore  recommend  that  the  churches  refer  to  such  matters,  concerning 
which  they  may  desire  advice  and  counsel  to  the  City  Mission  Board  .  .  .," 
was  presented  with  others  by  the  Committee  on  Resolutions.  It  was  not 
adopted,  however,  but  "was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Program,  with 
instruction  to  find  if  possible  a  place  on  the  program  of  either  the  afternoon 
or  evening  session  when  time  could  be  given  for  considering  the  suggestion 
of  the  committee  regarding  the  continuance  of  the  Advisory  Committee  on 
Councils.  The  matter  was  not  again  brought  up  during  the  session  of  the 
Association." 


THE     FURTHER     RELATION 


95 


church  desiring  to  issue  the  call  and  on  the  part  of  the  churches 
called.  While  the  Chicago  Association  of  course  does  not  deny  the 
right  of  direct  appeal  to  the  churches,  it  has  recommended,  through 
the  adoption  of  the  report  by  which  the  Advisory  Committee  was 
constituted, 

"That  no  council  be  called  except  upon  the  recom- 
mendation of  this  committee,  and  that  the  churches  do  not 
send    delegates   to   any   council   within   this   Association 
unless  the  call  have  the  approval  of  the  advisory  com- 
mittee." 

It  is  extremely  unlikely,  however,  that  any  member  of  an  Ad- 
visory Committee  would  oppose  the  calling  of  a  council  unless  the 
reasons  for  opposition  were  sufficiently  sound  to  convince  the  rest 
of  the  committee  as  well. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  PERMANENT  COUNCIL. 

While  other  Associations  have  from  time  to  time  given  expres- 
sion to  opinions  concerning  the  council,  and  an  examination  of  all 
their  records  would  possibly  reveal  plans  and  suggestions  fully  as 
interesting  as  the  schemes  at  which  we  have  been  looking,  yet  noth- 
ing appears  of  special  or  more  than  local  significance  till  we  come 
to  the  action  of  the  Southern  New  York  Baptist  Association  cul- 
minating in  1895.  Two  years  previously,  at  the  annual  meeting  of 
the  Association,  Rev.  William  C.  Bitting,  D.  D.,  then  pastor  of  the 
Mount  Morris  Baptist  Church,  had  read  a  paper  on  "The  State  of 
Our  Churches  in  New  York  City,"  and  on  Oct.  11,  1894,  he  read 
another  paper  on  "Our  Present  Denominational  Status,"  which  was 
ordered  printed  in  the  Minutes,  where  it  appears  under  the  title, 
"The  Status  of  Our  Churches,"  After  a  somewhat  detailed  statis- 
tical analysis  of  the  conditions  of  the  churches,  Dr,  Bitting  appealed 
to  the  Association  to  face  frankly  the  situation  and  the  problems 
which  he  had  described  and  defined,  "Let  us  be  practical,  definite, 
and  united,  and  we  will  see  new  fruits."  After  a  discussion,  a  com- 
mittee of  five,  with  Dr.  Bitting  as  chairman,  was  appointed  "to  con- 
sider the  condition  of  our  denomination  within  the  boundaries  of 
this  Association,  and  make  such  suggestions  for  its  improvement  as 
may  seem  to  be  best  to  them." 

On  Oct,  9,  1895,  this  committee  reported  at  some  length.  In 
considering  the  relations  of  the  churches  to  each  other,  it  noted  the 
following : 

1.  The    lack    of    fraternal    intercourse    between    our 

churches, 

2.  The  want  of  cordial  co-operation,  mutual   interest 

and  helpfulness, 
•  3.  The  need  of  systematic  and  thorough  superinten- 
dence and  cultivation  of  our  field  of  operations. 
To  sum  up,  it  may  be  said  that  our  churches  are 
denominationally  in  a  loose,  disintegrated  condi- 
tion, neither  in  as  close  touch  with  adjacent  popu- 
lation, nor  with  one  another  as  thev  should  be. 
96 


THE     PERMANENT     COUNCIL 


97 


The  report  then  emphasized  the  need  of  closer  co-operation : 
"Our  present  weakness  results  in  our  opinion  partly 
from  a  failure  to  perpetuate  this  essential  principle  of  the 
New  Testament  in  our  associated  life,  and  partly  from 
our  neglect  to  adapt  ourselves  to  our  changed  environ- 
ment. Besides  a  more  rigorous  adaptation  of  our  work- 
to  the  conditions  of  life  which  surround  us,  we  need  also 
to  emphasize  in  our  local  denominational  life  this  princi- 
ple of  oneness,  which  was  so  prominent  and  useful  in  the 
days  of  the  apostles." 

The  committee  then  suggested  a  definite  plan  by  which  to  secure 
the  desired  end,  consisting  of  two  features,  with  the  first  of  which 
only  are  we  especially  concerned. 

"I.     That  there  shall  be  a  permanent  Council. 

"i.  It  shall  consist  of  every  pastor,  and  one  delegate 
from  each  church  in  the  Association. 

"2.     It  shall  maintain  an  organic  relation  to  the  As- 
sociation. 

"3.  Its  functions  shall  be  to  consider  all  matters 
which  are  usually  referred  to  special  councils,  such  as : 

"a.     The  advisability  of  ordaining  candidates, 

"b.     The  organization  and  location  of  churches, 

"c.  Matters  usually  referred  to  mutual,  or  ex  parte 
[councils, 

"d.  Or  any  other  matter  for  which  a  church  usually 
calls  a  council. 

"4.  Its  power  shall  be  the  same  as  that  which  coun- 
cils usually  have  in  our  denomination,  merely  advisory, 
not  legislative  ;  moral,  not  judicial.  Its  opinion  would  vir- 
tually be  that  of  our  denomination  in  the  city. 

''5.  It  shall  hold  regular  meetings,  at  which  it  shall 
consider  any  matters  brought  before  it  by  any  church. 

"6.  It  shall  have  the  right  to  request  any  church  or 
churches  to  submit  to  it  for  advice  thereon,  any  matters 
of  local  importance  which  afifect  the  general  denomina- 
tional welfare  or  reputation. 

"7.  It  shall  have  the  right  to  request  brethren  w^ho 
contemplate  the  organization  of  a  church,  to  submit  to  it 
a  full  statement  of  the  conditions  under  which  they  pro- 
pose to  organize,  and  all  information  necessary  as  a  basis 
for  proper  advice. 

"8.  It  shall  have  the  power  to  act  for  the  Associa- 
tion on  such  business  as  it  would  not  be  expedient  to 


98  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN     AMERICA 

postpone  until  the  next  annual  meeting. 

"9.  It  shall  report  to  the  Association  at  its  annual 
session. 

"10.  The  council  shall  organize  itself,  and  in  all 
respects  in  which  its  functions  are  not  determined  for 
it  by  the  Association,  shall  define  its  own  duties  and  privi- 
leges, without  in  any  way  interfering  with  the  self-gov- 
ernment of  any  local  church,-  or  violating  w^ell-established 
denominational  usage." 

The  second  feature  suggested  was  the  appointment  of  a  Pastor  at 
Large.  His  relation  to  the  Permanent  Council  was  to  be  as  fol- 
lows: 

"He  shall,  so  far  as  his  work  will  allow ;     *     *     * 
"5.     Do  such  work  as  the  Permanent  Council  may 
direct   for  the  interest  and  development  of  our  whole 
Brotherhood. 

"6.  He  shall  have  no  official  relationship  with  any 
church,  and  shall  receive  no  salary  from  any  other  source 
than  that  provided  by  the  Permanent  Council. 

"7.  He  shall  be,  ex  officio,  a  member  of  the  Council 
and  shall  be  accountable  to  it." 

The  report  was  received  and  discussed  and  finally  adopted,  the 
Association  voting  that  a  printed  copy  of  the  report  be  sent  to  each 
church  in  its  membership,  "with  the  request  that  each  Church  send 
its  Pastor  and  one  delegate  to  a  Council  to  be  held  at  a  day  to  be 
hereafter  fixed,  to  form  a  Permanent  Council  as  proposed  in  the 
report."    The  following  resolution  was  then  adopted : 

"Resolved,  That  we  instruct  the  Clerk  of  the  Associa- 
tion to  issue  a  call  to  the  Churches  to  send  their  Pastor 
and  one  delegate  to  meet  in  the  Mount  Morris  Baptist 
Church  on  the  first  Tuesday  in  December  at  two  o'clock 
p.  m.,  for  the  purpose  of  forming  a  Permanent  Council 
in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  report  of  the 
Denominational  Committee,  adopted  at  this  meeting  of 
the  Association." 

Before  turning  to  the  meeting  thus  called  for  the  organization 
of  the  Permanent  Council,  it  may  be  well  for  us  to  notice  just  what 
this  new  plan  was  in  its  relation  to  the  previous  development  of  the 
council.  This  is  the  more  necessary  for  the  main  purpose  of  our 
study,  as  the  idea  of  the  Permanent  Council  was  strenuously  op- 
posed not  only  by  some  within  the  Association  in  which  the  plan 
originated,  but  it  created  discussions  in  the  denominational  press,  in 


THE     PERMANENT     COUNCIL  99 

associational  meetings  and  in  various  conferences  in  different  parts 
of  the  country.  Much  of  the  opposition  which  it  aroused  doubtless 
came  from  the  term,  "Permanent,"  which  suggested  to  some  minds 
a  status  of  the  new  body  quite  other  than  that  actually  defined  by 
the  plan  adopted  by  the  Association.  In  its  membership,  its  power  of 
self-organization,  and  its  functions,  the  Permanent  Council  was  to 
follow  essentially  the  principles  established  in  the  conciliar  system 
already  operative  in  the  denomination.  The  rights  of  the  local 
church  and  its  independency  were  most  carefully  guarded.  Articles 
I,  3,  4  and  lo  contain  nothing  which  can  be  assailed  if  one  believes 
the  ordinary  council  has  any  warrant  for  existence  among  Baptist 
churches ;  it  is  in  terms  of  this  institution  that  the  Permanent  Coun- 
cil and  its  functions  are  defined.  There  are  three  points,  however, 
in  which  the  plan  for  the  Permanent  Cduncil  differentiated  it  from 
the  ordinary  council :  ( i )  Its  organic  relation  to  the  Association  ; 
(2)  Its  permanency;  (3)  Its  right  to  a  limited  initiative. 

(l)    ITS    ORGANIC    RELATION    TO   THE   ASSOCIATION. 

In  its  relation  to  the  churches  composing  it,  the  relation  of  the 
Permanent  Council  was  to  be  precisely  that  of  the  specially  called 
council,  except  that  there  was  to  be  the  relation  to  the  churches  col- 
lectively in  the  Association  as  well  as  the  direct  relation  of  the  two 
delegates  to  each  individual  church.  This  simply  placed  an  addi- 
tional check  upon  the  new  organization  by  linking  its  very  existence 
to  the  Association  which  was  itself  based  upon  a  purely  voluntary 
relationship.  It  gave  no  new  powers  to  the  council ;  it  might  be  con- 
sidered an  extension  of  the  power  of  the  Association,  although 
really  only  the  use,  in  a  new  direction,  of  the  power  already  con- 
ferred upon  the  Association.  The  organic  relation  with  the  Associa- 
tion is  only  a  concrete  and  practical  method  of  following  the  principle 
noted  earlier,  that  the  associational  unit  offers  itself  most  naturally 
in  the  correlation  of  the  local  church  and  the  denomination.  The 
report  of  the  Permanent  Council  to  the  Association  would  give  pub- 
licity to  the  actions  of  the  former  and  would  assist  in  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  Council's  records.  The  provision  that  the  Council  might 
act  for  the  Association  in  emergencies  between  the  annual  meetings 
of  the  latter  body  rests  upon  the  fact  that  each  body  represents  the 
same  constituency. 

(2)    ITS    PERMANENCY. 

This  feature,  to  which  the  Permanent  Council  owes  its  distinc- 
tive name,  and  which  has  caused  most  of  the  opposition  to  it,  is 
really  not  so  radical  an  innovation  as  the  name  might  suggest,  in 
the  light  of  the  actual  development  of  the  institution  which  we  have 
been  tracing: — the  conciliar  svstem  itself.    It  is  the  sreneral  consensus 


lOO  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IX     AMERICA 

of  Opinion  among  American  Baptists  that  in  certain  situations  advice 
should  be  sought  from  some  sort  of  council.  Although  it  hasbeen 
customary  to  call  a  special  council  for  each  case,  and  that  council  has 
come  into  being  only  upon  a  special  call,  dissolving  when  it  has  fin- 
ished its  special  work,  the  council  as  an  institution  may  be  considered 
established — that  is,  permanent.  It  exists  as  an  institution  in  Ameri- 
can Baptist  polity  even  when  no  council  happens  to  be  in  session. 
From  their  beginnings,  the  Associations  have  suggested  more  or  less 
definite  plans  for  the  assistance  of  the  churches  in  meeting  the  obli- 
gations of  inter-church  fellowship,  their  action  being  wholly  de- 
pendent upon  its  acceptance  by  the  churches.  In  this  regard,  there 
was  nothing  novel  or  radical  in  the  action  of  the  Southern  New 
York  Association. 

It  is  certainly  within  the  province  of  a  church  to  appoint  in  ad- 
vance delegates  who  shall  represent  the  church  at  any  councils  in 
which  the  church  may  participate  during  the  year,  if  it  has  the  right 
to  entrust  other  functions  to  trustees  and  committees.  There  is  no 
more  reason  why  the  co-operation  of  the  churches  in  the  council 
should  be  sporadic  any  more  than  in  the  Association  itself.  Each 
is  created  by  the  churches  and  sustained  by  them ;  apart  from  them, 
neither  has  any  existence. 

The  analogy  of  the  development  of  the  Permanent  Council  can  be 
seen  in  the  history  of  legislative  committees.  A  special  committee 
has  been  appointed  for  a  special  purpose.  If  a  similar  occasion 
recurs,  again  a  special  committee  will  be  appointed.  If,  however, 
the  matter  becomes  one  of  constant  recurrence,  needing  frequent  at- 
tention, economy,  in  the  broadest  sense  of  the  term,  demands  that  a 
standing  committee  be  established.  The  Permanent  Council,  as 
established  by  the  Association  and  the  churches,  was  to  be  a  standing 
committee  of  advice,  as  the  ordinary  council  had  been  a  special 
committee  of  advice.  This  does  not  mean  that  its  membership 
would  remain  the  same,  thereby  setting  off  individuals  as  a  fixed 
class,  nor  does  it  mean  that  the  committee  is  established  forever.  It 
does  not  mean  that  any  final  power  is  given  to  the  council  or  taken 
from  the  individual  church.  In  communities  where  there  is  only 
infrequent  need  of  councils,  and  where  the  churches  are  sufficiently 
far  apart  that  there  will  be  little  danger  of  their  encroaching  upon 
the  rights  of  others,  the  specially  called  council  may  be  satisfactory ; 
yet  such  a  situation  is  particularly  favorable  to  unworthy  men  who 
wish  to  secure  a  ministerial  standing.  Where  the  churches  are 
nearer,  as  in  a  metropolitan  district,  where  each  church  may  in  a 
peculiar  sense  affect  the  entire  denominational  work  of  the  com- 
munitv,  a  standing  council  of  advice  should  be  able  to  give  that  ad- 


THE     PERMANENT     COUNCIL  lOl 

vice  more  intelligently  and  more  consistently  with  the  larger  inter- 
ests of  the  denomination  and  full  as  sympathetically  with  the  local 
interests.  Such  in  general  were  the  reasons  for  the  establishment  of 
the  Permanent  Council  by  the  Southern  New  York  Baptist  Associa- 
tion and  most  of  the  churches  composing  it. 

(3)    ITS  RIGHT  TO  A  LIMITED   INITIATIVE. 

Although  this  feature  was  early  removed  by  the  Council  itself, 
as  we  shall  see,  it  did  belong  to  the  original  plan  as  adopted  by  the 
Association  and  so  should  be  considered.  The  sixth  and  seventh 
articles  gave  to  the  Council  certain  rights  of  initiative,  namely,  the 
right  to  request  churches  to  submit  matters  to  the  Council  for  advice, 
if'in  the  judgment  of  the  Council,  the  matters  affected  "the  general 
denominational  welfare  or  reputation" ;  and  in  the  case  of  the  con- 
templated organization  of  a  church,  the  right  to  request  "all  informa- 
tion necessary  as  a  basis  for  proper  advice."  As  the  expectation  of 
the  denomination  that  churches  will  submit  such  matters  for  advice 
has  become  virtually  a  moral  demand,  there  appears  very  little 
power  actually  conferred  upon  the  Permanent  Council  in  the  formal 
permission  given  in  advance  that  it  might  take  the  initiative  in 
asking  churches  to  submit  matters  to  it.  The  individual  church 
would  not  be  compelled  to  grant  the  request  nor  need  it  accept  the 
advice  of  the  Council.  Yet  the  two  articles  seemed  to  make  the 
Council  rather  than  the  church  the  judge  of  the  question  whether 
the  church  should  seek  advice,  and  so  might  needlessly  offend  the 
sense  of  independence  in  the  local  church. 

Earlier  in  the  meeting  of  the  Association  in  1895,  a  request  for 
admission  to  its  membership  had  been  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Application  of  Churches.  After  the  plan  for  the  Permanent  Council 
had  been  adopted,  this  committee  recommended  that  the  application 
"be  referred  for  further  consideration  to  the  new  Permanent  Council 
about  to  be  formed,"  and  it  was  so  voted. 

In  accordance  with  the  vote  of  the  Association,  its  Clerk  sent 
the  call  for  the  first  meeting  of  the  Permanent  Council,  sending  to 
each  church  in  the  Association  a  printed  letter  containing  the  Reso- 
lution adopted  by  the  Association;  there  was  also  sent  a  printed 
copy  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee  suggesting  the  plan  for  the 
Council.  Pursuant  to  this  call,  39  churches  sent  delegates,  consisting 
of  35  pastors  and  28  laymen,  who  met  in  the  Mt.  Morris  Church  on 
Tuesday,  Dec.  3,  1895,  at  2  p.  m.  Eleven  delegates  appointed  were 
not  present.  Temporary  organization  was  effected  by  the  election 
of  Rev.  W.  H.  P.  Faunce  as  President,  Rev.  Samuel  Alman  as  Clerk, 
and  Rev.  D.  A.  Murray  as  Assistant  Clerk.    After  prayer,  the  call 


I02  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

for  the  Council  was  read  and  the  roll  of  delegates  called.  The  First 
Baptist  Church  definitely  declined  to  accede  to  the  request  to  partici- 
pate in  the  Council.  By  vote,  the  temporary  organization  was  made 
the  "Permanent  Council,"  and  a  committee  appointed  to  bring  before 
the  Council  a  plan  and  scope  of  the  Council's  work. 

Before  considering  any  cases  submitted  to  the  Permanent  Coun- 
cil, it  may  be  better  for  us  first  to  follow  further  the  work  of  the 
Council  in  its  own  organization.  At  its  first  session,  it  passed  these 
resolutions : 

"Resolved,  that  the  Clerk  of  this  Council  communi- 
cate with  the  Churches  that  have  neither  sent  delegates 
nor  declined  the  call  to  this  Council,  informing  them  that 
the  Council  has  convened,  and  of  the  strength  of  its  rep- 
resentation, and  invite  them  once  more  to  join  us. 

"Resolved,    that   this   Council    request    its    President 
and  Clerk  to  prepare  a  response  to  the  letter  received 
from  the  First  Baptist  Church,  and  again  invite  them 
to  join  it." 
The  Committee  on  Plan  and  Scope  did  not  report  till  the  third 
session  of  the  Council,  on  Feb.  4,  1896,  when  it  reported  the  follow- 
ing, which  was  unanimously  adopted : 

DECLARATION. 

The  Permanent  Council  of  the  Baptist  churches  of 
the  City  of  New  York  and  its  vicinity  had  its  origin  in 
the  request  of  the  Southern  New  York  Baptist  Associa- 
tion to  the  churches  represented  in  it  to  form  such  a 
council  in  accordance  with  the  suggestion  made  at  the 
Associational  meeting  in  1894. 

Its  purpose  is  to  bring  these  churches  into  closer  as- 
sociation and  co-operation  without  any  encroachment 
upon  the  independence  of  any  church,  or  interference 
with  its  right  to  self-government. 

Its  functions  are  those  usually  discharged  by  councils, 
and  to  consider  and  act  upon  any  matter  referred  to  it 
by  the  Southern  New  York  Baptist  Association  or  of 
general  concern  to  the  denomination. 

It  has  the  right  to  request  information  from  any 
church  represented  in  it  upon  any  matters  which  affect 
the  general  denominational  welfare,  and  to  request  those 
who  contemplate  the  organization  of  a  Church  to  submit 
a  statement  of  the  facts  which  induce  them  so  to  do. 
(This  paragraph  was  repealed  Nov.  9,  1897.) 


THE     PERMANENT     COUNCIL 


103 


It  has  the  power  to  advise,  but  not  to  legislate  or  to 
enforce  its  conclusions. 

CONSTITUTION. 

Art.  I.  The  name  of  the  Council  shall  be  "The  Per- 
manent Council  of  the  Baptist  Churches  of  the  City  of 
New  York  and  its  Vicinity." 

Art.  II.  The  objects,  purposes  and  powers  of  the 
Council  shall  be  as  stated  in  the  preceding  Declaration. 

Art.  III.  Its  officers  shall  be  a  moderator,  vice- 
moderator,  recording  clerk,  corresponding  clerk  and 
treasurer. 

Art.  IV.  Each  Church  connected  with  the  Southern 
New  York  Baptist  Association  may  send  annually,  in  the 
month  of  November,  its  pastor  or  its  associate  or  assist- 
ant pastor,  and  one  member  as  delegates  to  the  Council, 
and  the  delegates  thus  sent  shall  constitute  the  Council. 
The  terms  of  the  delegates  shall  expire  with  the  election 
of  their  successors. 

Art.  V.  Regular  meetings  shall  be  held  on  the  first 
Tuesday  of  each  month  at  3  o'clock  in  the  afternoon, 
unless,  by  resolution,  the  Council  shall  order  otherwise. 
The  meeting  in  November  shall  be  the  annual  meeting, 
and  the  officers  of  the  Council  shall  be  elected. 

Special  meetings  may  be  called  by  the  Moderator, 
and  shall  be  called  upon  the  written  request  of  any  seven 
members  of  the  Council.  Twenty  members  shall  be  a 
quorum  for  the  transaction  of  business. 

Art.  VI.  The  foregoing  Declaration  may  be  amend- 
ed at  any  annual  meeting,  and  this  Constitution  may  be 
amended  at  any  regular  business  meeting  by  a  vote  of 
two-thirds  of  the  members  present,  provided  that  at  least 
thirty  members  shall  be  present,  and  a  previous  notice 
of  the  proposed  amendment  shall  have  been  given  at  a 
regular  meeting. 

BY-LAWS. 

Art.  I.  (This,  in  five  sections,  defines  the  duties  of 
the  five  officers  in  the  usual  way.  There  is  need  of  in- 
serting here  only  the  requirement  that  the  Correspond- 
ing Clerk  "shall  send  notices  to  the  delegates  of  the  time 
and  place  of  holding  all  meetings  of  the  Council.") 


104  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

Art.  II.     Order  of  Business. 

1.  Prayer. 

2.  Calling  of  Roll. 

3.  Reading  of  Minutes. 

4.  Report  of  Treasurer. 

5.  Report  of  Corresponding  Clerk. 

6.  Report  of  Committees. 

7.  Unfinished  Business. 

8.  New  Business. 

9.  Adjournment. 

Art.  III.  These  By-Laws  may  be  amended  at  any 
regular  business  meeting  by  a  vote  of  the  members  pres- 
ent, provided  that  at  least  30  members  shall  be  present 
and  a  previous  notice  of  the  proposed  amendment  shall 
have  been  given  at  a  regular  meeting. 

At  the  same  meeting  in  which  the  Constitution  and  By-Laws 
were  adopted,  it  was  also  voted  that  each  Church  represented  in 
the  Council  should  be  requested  to  contribute  towards  the  expenses 
of  the  Council  a  sum  of  money  equal  to  one-half  cent  for  each 
member  reported  to  the  Association  at  its  last  meeting. 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Council,  on  Nov.  9,  1897,  the  fourth 
paragraph  of  the  Declaration  was  stricken  out  for  the  reasons  indi- 
cated. (Page  1 01.)  At  the  same  meeting,  an  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  was  offered,  which  was  adopted  on  March  i,  1898. 

"A  Report  shall  be  made  to  the  Southern  New  York 
Baptist  Association  at  each  annual  session  of  the  action 
of  the  Council  upon  all  applications  for  advice  (a)  from 
the  churches,  concerning  ordinations  to  the  ministry,  and 
(b)  from  the  brethren  seeking  recognition  as  a  Baptist 
Church.  Such  reports  shall  be  made  for  purpose  of 
information  and  record  and  not  for  review  by  the  Asso- 
ciation." 

This  amendment  simply  incorporated  into  the  Constitution  the 
provision  of  the  ninth  article  of  the  original  plan  as  adopted  by  the 
Association,  with  a  more  definite  statement  of  the  purpose  of  the 
report  to  that  body.    At  this  meeting  on  March  ist.  it  wa^ 

"Resolved,  that  a  strict  interpretation  of  Art.  IV.  of 
the  Constitution  limits  membership  in  this  Council  to 
churches  that  are  members  of  the  Southern  New  York 
Baptist  Association." 


THE     PERMANENT     COUNCIL  IO5 

On  several  occasions,  however,  especially  during  the  examination 
of  candidates  for  ordination,  visiting  brethren  have  been  invited  to 
participate  in  the  deliberations  of  the  Council,  in  accordance  with 
the  well-established  usage  in  councils,  but  presumably  with  no 
power  to  vote.  In  October,  1899,  the  time  for  the  regular  meeting 
of  the  Council  was  changed  to  the  third  Monday  of  the  month,  but 
otherwise  no  further  changes  have  been  made  in  the  Constitution 
and  By-Laws.  On  one  occasion,  March  7,  1899,  when  a  storm  pre- 
vented' the  attendance  of  a  full  quorum  at  the  regular  meeting  of  the 
Council,  by  special  vote  of  those  present,  the  examination  of  a  candi- 
date for  ordination  was  proceeded  with.  While  theoretical  objec- 
tions might  be  raised  to  such  procedure,  none  seems  to  have  been. 
As  the  action  of  the  Council  was  not  final  but  was  subject  to  the 
ratification  of  the  Church  asking  the  examination  of  the  candidate, 
the  members  present,  though  less  than  a  quorum,  felt  justified  in 
proceeding.  On  May  26,  1902,  the  Council  ratified  the  action  of  the 
two  previous  meetings,  at  which  no  quorum  was  present. 

Although  in  this  study  of  the  council  as  an  institution  we  have 
not  paid  anv  specific  attention  to  the  method  of  procedure  in  the 
ordinary  council  nor  examined  definite  cases  and  the  action  of 
councils  except  as  this  would  throw  light  upon  the  external  relations 
of  the  council  it  may  be  well  to  notice  some  of  the  advantages 
which  have  been  discerned  in  the  Permanent  Council  in  the  handlmg 
of  specific  cases  brought  before  it. 

In  cases  of  request  for  the  recognition  of  churches,  from  its 
relation  to  the  Association,  the  Council  has  been  able  to  take  a  view 
of  the  whole  field  and  the  relation  of  the  new  enterprise  to  existing 
interests.  While  distinct  from  the  Association,  in  a  sense  it  is  a 
large  committee  of  the  Association,  which  will  generally  adopt  the 
Council's  opinion  as  its  own ;  yet  on  the  question  of  admitthig  the 
new  church  to  its  membership,  the  Association  has  the  right  to 
review  the  whole  situation. 

In  the  examination  of  candidates  for  ordination,  the  Permanent 
Council  is  not  handicapped  bv  a  definite  "terminus  ad  quem"  for  it^ 
deliberations.  The  time  for  the  ordination  services  cannot  be  set 
very  definitelv  until  the  Council  has  acted.  Having  regular  meet- 
ings, the  postponement  of  action  or  the  continuation  of  the  examina- 
tion'to  a  later  session  is  a  much  less  complicated  and  embarrassing 
affair  than  the  adjournment  of  a  special  council  to  a  later  day.  In 
the  very  first  case  of  examination  which  came  before  the  Perma- 
nent Council,  it  seemed  advisable  to  continue  the  examination  over 
to  the  next  regular  session,  an  arrangement  which  was  readily 
acquiesced  in  by  the  candidate  and  the  church  immediately 
concerned. 


io6 


BAPTIST     COUNCII.S     IN    AMERICA 


While  in  no  sense  compelling  absolute  conformity  to  any  plan 
which  it  may  suggest  to  the  churches  or  which  it  may  adopt  for  its 
own  guidance,  the  Permanent  Council  has  been  able  to  bring  to  the 
attention  of  the  churches  certain  prin«iples  of  action  and  to  make 
some  improvements  in  the  methods  of  conducting  the  business  of  a 
council.  In  1897,  for  example,  it  adopted  the  report  of  a  Committee 
on  Polity,  which  advised  the  churches,  among  other  things,  to  pay 
prompt  attention  to  requests  for  letters  of  dismission,  and  that 
Baptists  generally  unite  with  die  nearest  Baptist  Church,  if  they  live 
at  a  distance  from  their  own.  Of  more  general  interest  is  the  effort 
of  the  Permanent  Council  to  secure  a  more  satisfactory  examination 
of  candidates  for  ordination.  In  1903,  a  committee  was  appointed 
to  suggest  a  Course  of  Examination  in  the  English  Bible ;  the  com- 
mittee sent  queries  to  various  theological  teachers  and  others  to 
ascertain  their  opinion  upon  such  an  examination  and  their  recom- 
mendations as  to  its  general  scope.  At  the  meeting  of  the  Council  on 
Dec.  21,  1903,  the  Committee  reported  the  following  plan,  which  was 
adopted_  and  ordered  sent  to  the  Baptist  journals  and  theological 
seminaries  of  the  country : 

I.  That  examination  of  a  candidate  be  upon  ( i )  his 
Christian  experience;  (2)  his  call  to  the  Christian  min- 
istry; (3)  his  knowledge  of  the  English  Bible;  (4)  his 
views  of  Christian  truth. 

II.  That  in  the  examination  on  the  English  Bible  no 
difference  as  to  scope  be  made  between  graduates  of  theo- 
logical seminaries  and  those  who  have  not  had  such  ad- 
vantages, since  some  knowledge  of  the  Bible  is  essential 
to_  qualify  any  person  for  entrance  upon  the  Christian 
ministry.  The  Council  can  easily  adjust  the  minuteness 
of  its  examination  to  the  educational  history  of  each 
candidate. 

III.  That  as  a  minimum,  the  scope  of  the  examina- 
tion on  the  English  Bible  embrace  (i)  the  names  and 
classification  of  the  books  of  the  Bible;  (2)  the  contents 
of  any  book  in  the  Bible;  (3)  Bible  history,  including 
pnncipal  biographies;    (4)  the  life  of  Christ. 

The  question  of  the  method  of  conducting  was  then  raised,  and 
the  matter  referred  to  the  same  committee. 

Although  in  the  original  plan  for  the  Permanent  Council,  its 
functions  were  to  include  the  consideration  of  "all  matters  which 
are  usually  referred  to  special  councils,  such  as  *  *  *  c.  Matters 
usually  referred  to  mutual  or  ex  parte  councils,"  and  in  its  Declar- 
ation, it  was  stated  that  "its  functions  are  those  usually  discharged 


THE     PERMANENT     COUNCIL  IO7 

by  councils,"  from  the  beginning  the  Permanent  Council  has  studi- 
ously avoided  becoming  an  ex  parte  council  and  his  considered  no 
matter  brought  before  it  by  a  minority  of  a  church  or  excluded 
members  of  a  church.  In  such  cases,  it  has  been  possible  either 
to  secure  the  consent  of  the  church  concerned  that  the  Council 
consider  the  case,  making  it  virtually  a  mutual  council,  or  the 
minority  or  excluded  members  have  asked  to  be  received  into  some 
other  church,  which  thereupon  has  brought  the  matter  before  the 
Council  for  its  advice. 

Since  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution  provid- 
ing that  the  Council  shall  report  to  the  Association,  such  reports  have 
been  made  and  are  embodied  in  the  Minutes  of  the  latter  body. 

It  was  natural  that  the  organization  of  a  Permanent  Council  in 
so  prominent  a  body  as  the  Southern  New  York  Association  should 
be  followed  by  the  introduction  of  similar  institutions  in  other  Asso- 
ciations, or  at  least,  that  the  suggestion  to  organize  them  should  be 
made.  In  1896,  the  Chicago  Association,  which  the  previous  year 
had  expressed  itself  in  one  particular  concerning  the  rights  of 
councils,^  adopted  the  report  of  its  Committee  on  Resolutions,  which 
had  presented  a  resolution  calling  for  a  conference  of  the  churches, 
through  delegates,  to  consider  the  advisability  of  the  organization  of 
"a  Baptist  Council  to  continue  its  life  throughout  the  associational 
year."  The  meeting  was  held  on  March  16,  1897,  and  passed  the 
following  resolution : 

"Resolved,   That  this  body  advise   the  churches   to 
appoint  their  pastors  and  two  delegates  each,  to  organize 
a  Baptist  Council  to  continue  through  the  Associational 
year   to   perform   such   duties   as   belong   to   ordaining, 
recognizing  and  advisory  councils  in  the  Baptist  denom- 
ination, whenever  requested  by  any  church  desiring  such 
advice,  so  to  do.    We,  however,  further  advise  that  the 
delegates    do   not   organize    unless    two-thirds    of    the 
churches  responding  do  so  favorably." 
This  action  of  the  Conference  was  reported  to  the  Association 
at  its  meeting  in  September,   1897,  and  the  above  resolution  was 
adopted  as  a  part  of  a  report  of  the  committee  on  the  Conference, 
which  had  alreadv  been  accepted.     A  committee  of  three  was  ap- 
pointed to  carry  out  the  findings  of  the  Conference.     At  the  next 
meeting  of  the"  Association,  in  1898,  the  Clerk  announced  that  31 
churches  had  reported  on  the  question,   19  being  favorable  and  12 
unfavorable  toward  the  organization  of  the  proposed  council.    The 
Association   extended  the  time  during  which  the  answers  of  the 


I.     See  Chap.  V..  Note  2Z. 


I08  BAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

churches  might  be  received  until  Nov.  i,  but  at  that  date  the  neces- 
sary two-thirds  was  still  wanting,  so  the  Annual  Council  failed  of 
adoption  by  the  Chicago  Association.  The  opponents  of  the  plan 
made  use  of  a  two-fold  argument  to  secure  its  defeat, — that  it  was  an 
innovation  which  rested  upon  no  New  Testament  precedent,  and 
that  it  imperiled  the  independence  of  the  churches.  The  Associa- 
tion was  not  satisfied,  however,  with  the  situation ;  there  were 
obvious  defects  and  even  perils  in  a  system  which  allowed  packed 
councils  and  hasty  decisions  of  vital  questions,  and  very  soon,  as  we 
noted  in  the  previous  chapter,  the  Chicago  Association  appointed 
an  Advisory  Committee  on  Councils  which  could  represent  the 
Association  in  oversight  over  the  cases  to  be  submitted  to  specially 
called  councils. 

In  New  Jersey,  several  Associations  have  organized  Permanent 
Councils,  and  the  Worcester  (Mass.)  Association  is  about  to  organ- 
ize one ;  the  matter  has  been  submitted  to  the  churches  and  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  them  have  voted  their  approval  to  insure  the 
adoption  of  the  plan.  All  /these  generally  follow  closely  the 
Southern  New  York  order,  the  chief  deviations  being  found  in  the 
North  New  Jersey  Association,  which  in  1900  organized  an  "Asso- 
ciational  Council."  This  Association  repudiates  the  idea  of  "per- 
manency" not  only  by  using  another  term  in  the  name  of  its 
Council ;  the  Standing  Rule  under  which  the  Council  is  organized 
and  operated  definitely  states  : 

"That  an  Associational  Council  shall  be  formed  each 
year,  to  which  may  be  referred  all  matters  usually 
referred  to  Councils  by  Baptist  churches.  This  Council 
shall  be  composed  of  the  pastor  and  two  laymen  from 
each  church  in  the  Association,  who  shall  come  together 
for  organization  at  each  annual  meeting  of  the  Asso- 
ciation at  the  call  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Associational 
Council." 

This  Associational  Council  has  no  stated  meetings  except  this 
one  for  organization,  meeting  in  council  only  when  called  together  at 
the  request  of  some  church.    By  a  rule  of  the  Council, 

"all  questions  which  are  usually  referred  to  a  Council 
shall  first  be  presented  to  the  Advisory  Committee  of  this 
Council,  through  its  Secretary,  *  *  *  and  if  in  their 
judgment  it  be  wise  to  call  this  council  together  to  con- 
sider the  matter,  they  shall  advise  the  church  to  call  the 
Associational  Council  to  meet  with  it  for  the  transaction 
of  such  business  as  shall  come  before  them." 


THE     PERMANENT     COUNCIL 


109 


Presumably,  though  it  is  not  clear  from  the  language  of  the  rule, 
an  adverse  judgment  of  this  committee,  which  is  composed  of  eight 
laymen  and  four  ministers,  precludes  any  church  of  the  Association 
from  securing  a  meeting  of  the  Associational  Council. - 


2.  This  seems  implied  in  a  statement  of  the  function  of  the  Advisory 
Committee  and  the  status  of  the  Associational  Council  made  by  the 
Secretary,  Mr.  Wm.  A.  May,  in  a  recent  letter  to  the  present  writer.  "This 
Committee  is  merely  a  safeguard.  It  has  no  power  except  to  advise,  and 
if  a  full  council  is  to  be  called,  it  is  done  by  the  Secretary  in  the  name  of 
and  by  authority  of  the  calling  church  expressly  given  for  the  occasion. 
Thus  is  preserved  the  dignity,  independence  and  authority  of  the  local 
church,  which  must,  however,  in  requesting  the  Committee  to  act,  embody 
in  its  request  a  stipulation  agreeing  to  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  Com- 
mittee and  of  the  Council  if  called."  This  last  statement  reveals  a  remark- 
able demand  made  by  the  Council  and  acquiesced  in  by  the  churches.  In 
view  of  the  practical  harmlessness  of  the  term  "permanent,"  as  applied 
to  such  an  organized  council  as  that  of  the  Southern  N.  Y.  Association, 
it  looks  as  if  the  North  New  Jersey  Association  had  strained  out  the  gnat 
and  swallowed  the  camel. 


CHAPTER   VIII. 

CONCLUDING   REMARKS. 

In  this  study  of  the  council  as  an  institution  among  American 
Baptists,  we  have  traced  its  development  to  its  latest  phases  and 
may  now  briefly  review  the  ground  over  which  we  have  been  passing. 
Finding  the  occasion  for  the  council  in  the  relations  existing  between 
independent  churches  of  the  same  order,  we  saw  no  need  of  tracing 
back  the  line  of  historic  development  behind  the  time  when  the 
idea  of  the  local  church  was,  so  to  speak,  rediscovered,  in  the 
Protestant  Reformation.  We  might  have  begun  our  study  of  the 
council  among  American  Baptists  with  the  time  when  the  first 
council  was  held  by  them ;  but  finding  the  principle  of  the  obliga- 
tions of  fellowship  involved  in  the  genesis  of  the  council,  we  in- 
quired first  as  to  the  theories  of  inter-church  fellowship  which  were 
held  by  the  early  Baptists  of  England.  For  as  many  English  Bap- 
tists came  to  this  country  and  the  early  American  Baptists  were  m 
constant  communication  with  their  English  brethren,  the  American 
Baptist  churches  would  inevitably  be  influenced  by  the  doctrine 
and  polity  of  the  Baptists  of  England.  Examining  a  historic  line  of 
Confessions  of  Faith,  we  saw  that  alongside  of  the  principle  of  the 
independence  of  the  local  church  and  its  direct  responsibility  to 
Christ,  there  was  also  recognized  the  obligation  of  fellowship.  In 
the  practice,  also,  of  the  English  Baptist  churches,  we  saw  the  recog- 
nition of  the  same  principle,  the  matter  of  the  setting  apart  of  a 
ministry  in  particular  being  considered  of  wider  concern  than  the 
mere  limits  of  a  single  local  church.  Turning  to  America,  we  found 
here  the  same  ideas  finding  expression  as  the  increasing  numb2r  of 
churches  brought  them  into  more  frequent  touch  one  with  another. 

The  Congregational  churches  of  New  England  had  found  them- 
selves confronted  by  the  problems  of  inter-church  relations  before 
the  Baptist  churches  were  numerous  enough  for  such  questions  to 
arise.  They  had  already  held  several  councils  before  the  first  Baptist 
council  was  held,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  Baptists  did  not  ignore 
the  lessons  which  their  Congregational  brethren  had  been  learning 
by  experience.  Yet  we  are  hardly  warranted  in  saying  that  the 
American  Baptists  borrowed  the  council  from  the  Congregational- 
ists,  for  many  of  them  had  been  somewhat  familiar  with  it  as 
employed  by  the  English  Baptists.     With  the  increasing  number  of 


CONCLUDING     REMARKS  III 

churches  after  the  Great  Awakening,  the  American  Baptists  found 
the  problems  of  inter-church  fellowship  more  pressing  and  in  the 
meetings  of  their  Associations,  as  these  problems  were  discussed, 
the  place  of  the  council  became  more  definitely  recognized.  While 
the  Associations  themselves  were  advisory  bodies,  it  was  probably 
the  fear  that  they  might  become  too  powerful,  thus  threatening  the 
independence  of  the  local  churches,  which  led  them  to  foster  the 
council  and  to  preserve  it  and  even  to  develop  it  as  an  institution, 
rather  than  to  have  assumed  its  functions,  thus  virtually  destroying  it 
by  making  it  superfluous.  It  is  in  the  process  of  the  differentiation 
of  the  council  from  the  Association  that  we  have  been  best  able  to 
trace  the  development  of  the  council ;  for  in  this  process,  rather  than 
in  the  various  functions  which  have  been  carried  on  by  councils,  is 
the  real  history  of  the  council  as  an  institution  of  the  American 
Baptists  to  be  discovered. 

Of  special  significance,  therefore,  are  the  more  recent  phases  of 
the  council's  development ;  not  that  they  are  intrinsically  such  inno- 
vations as  they  have  seemed  to  many,  but  because  they  are  direct  and 
avowed  attempts  to  correlate  the  local  council  with  the  denomina- 
tion at  large  through  the  medium  of  the  Association.  If  the  sphere 
of  the  council  has  been  enlarged,  it  has  been  because  the  denomin- 
tional  growth  has  increased  the  community  of  interests  and  many 
of  the  contingencies  of  inter-church  relations  formerly  remote  are 
now  pressing  upon  the  churches.  As  the  council  has  from  the  be- 
ginning been  dominated  by  the  practical  ends  which  it  has  been 
intended  to  serve,  so  in  the  various  expedients  for  Associational 
oversight,  the  effort  has  been  made  to  meet  and  solve  certain  of  the 
practical  problems  of  denominational  life. 

There  are  two  tendencies  discernible  in  the  polity  of  the  various 
branches  of  the  Christian  Church  to-day.  In  those  denominations 
which  emphasize  catholicity  and  a  highly  centralized  ecclesiasticism. 
there  are  forces  at  work  disintegrating  in  their  effect  upon  a  rigid 
uniformity  and  continually  asserting  the  rights  of  a  local  and  indi- 
vidual expression  of  religious  life.  This  is  a  fruit  of  the  demo- 
cratic spirit  of  the  age.  On  the  other  hand,  those  churches  whicb 
have  emphasized  the  individual  and  the  local  group  of  believers, 
show  a  marked  tendency  toward  closer  organization  and  a  more 
complete  recognition  of  obligations  to  the  larger  fellowship.  It  does 
not  follow  that  the  movements  will  continue  till  the  two  divisions 
have  exchanged  their  theories  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  nor  may  we 
expect  that  eventually  the  two  theories  will  be  completely  synthe- 
sized. There  will  always  be  those  who  will  magnify  the  universal, 
while  others  will  always  be  particularists.  In  each  division  there  will 
be  extremists,  who  doubtless  will  from  time  to  time  teach  the  Church 


112  RAPTIST     COUNCILS     IN    AMERICA 

useful  lessons;  yet  it  is  certain  that  any  great  advance  of  the 
Christian  Church  toward  a  fundamental  and  organic  unity  will  not 
follow  the  extremists  either  on  the  one  side  or  the  other. 

To  a  person  reared  in  a  highly  organized  and  centralized  ecclesi- 
asticism,  the  council  as  it  exists  in  American  Baptist  polity  doubtless 
seems  a  feeble  instrument ;  advice  is  proverbially  cheap,  and  a  body 
which  has  only  the  function  of  giving  advice  is  essentially  insig- 
nificant and  at  the  most,  harmless.  On  the  other  hand,  the  person 
reared  in  a  rigid  independency  is  ever  suspicious  of  the  council, 
fearing  its  development  into  a  tyranny.  To  substitute  the  advisory 
council  for  the  legislative  and  disciplinary  bodies  of  the  more 
centralized  denominations  would  doubtless  result  in  chaos,  if  it 
should  be  done  precipitously.  If  the  Baptist  churches  of  America 
should  become  oligarchical  and  should  lose  the  spirit  of  democracy, 
there  would  be  a  lurking  danger  in  even  an  advisory  council.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  suspicion,  however,  that  any  of  the  development 
in  the  council  as  an  institution  among  the  American  Baptists  has  its 
origin  in  any  disloyalty  to  the  democratic  spirit  within  the  church. 
It  has  come  rather  from  a  sense  of  the  great  need  of  showing  to  the 
critics  of  Independency,  that  the  democratic  spirit  is  capable  of 
producing  as  efficient  an  organization  of  Christian  forces  as  is  any 
official  oligarchy  or  spiritual  aristocracy. 

The  Baptists  in  America  started  as  particularists  and  empha- 
sized the  independence  of  the  local  church,  yet  they  recognized  very 
distinctly  the  obligations  of  fellowship.  There  came  to  be,  however, 
a  tradition  of  an  independency  much  more  rigid  than  the  actual  facts 
of  history  bear  out,  and  that  tradition  has  been  too  much  exploited 
for  the  best  good  of  the  cause  of  Christ.  Some  of  the  manuals  of 
church  polity  which  have  been  widely  used  in  the  denomination  may 
be  held  to  a  considerable  degree  responsible  for  the  authority  of  the 
tradition.  Yet  the  great  onward  movement  of  the  Baptists  has  not 
been  permanently  hindered,  for  when  the  traditions  conflicted  with 
the  call  of  duty  as  embodied  in  the  obligations  of  Christian  fellow- 
ship, whether  among  individual  Christians  or  among  the  churches, 
the  Gospel  principle  has  ultimately  triumphed.  The  chief  sig- 
nificance of  this  genetic  study  of  the  council  is  to  be  found  in  the 
light  it  may  throw  upon  the  efforts  of  Independency,  as  represented 
in  the  American  Baptists,  to  attain  a  more  perfect  efficiency. 


APPENDIX. 

The  lists  that  follow  make  no  claim  to  completeness,  but  are 
inserted  for  whatever  of  service  they  may  be.  The  writer  will  be 
glad  to  receive  data  concerning  councils  not  included  in  these  lists, 
and  also  any  corrections  that  may  be  made  by  those  having  more 
direct  access  to  the  records  of  the  churches  calling  the  councils  than 
has  been  possible  to  him. 

A  (?)  following  a  date  indicates  that  the  council  may  have  been 
held  the  year  previous  to  the  date  given ;  following  the  name  of  the 
place  it  indicates  some  doubt  as  to  whether  there  was  a  fully  organ- 
ized council  representing  other  churches.  In  some  cases,  the  loca- 
tion of  the  church  calling  the  council  is  given  rather  than  the  place 
where  the  council  was  held.  Where  the  name  of  the  State  is  not 
given,  look  above  in  the  list. 


A.     A  Partial  List  of  Councils  up  to  1820. 


171 2- 
1712- 
1718- 
1738- 
1740- 

1743- 
1748- 

1753- 

1754- 

1757- 
1764- 

1765- 
1767- 
1770- 
1773- 
1774- 

1775- 
1776- 

1780- 


1781  — 


Middletown,  N.  J.  1782- 

Cape  May  Court   House.       ^783- 

Boston,  Mass.   (First.)  ^7^5" 

Boston.      (First.)  1785- 

Springfield. 

Boston.     (Second.) 

Waterford,  Conn.  1788 — 

Middleboro,  INIass. 

Exeter.  R.  I. 

Exeter.  i788( 

Exeter.     (2.)  17S9- 

Boston,  Mass.    (First.) 

Amenia,  N.  Y. 

Grafton,  Mass. 

-West  Royalston.  ^790 — 

•Sanford,  Me. 

Thompson,  Conn. 

■West  Greenwich,  R.  I. 

( ?)Bellingham,  Mass.  1792 — 

Medfield. 

•Newton,  Mass. 

Gilmanton,  N.  H.  1793" 

Wells,  Me. 

South  Kingstown,  R.  I.         1795- 

Manchester,  Vt.     ( ?) 

"3 


Pownal,  Vt. 

Dighton,  Mass. 

(?)Sutton. 

Hoosick,  N.  Y. 

West  Bridgewater,  Mass. 

Wilmington,  Del. 

Sandisfield,  Mass. 

New  London,  N.  H. 

Woodstock,  Conn. 
?)— Ashfield,  Mass. 
■  New  London,  N.  H. 

Weston,  Mass. 

Norwich  Plains,   Conn. 

Roxborough,  Pa. 

Sandisfield,  Mass. 

Norwich  Plains,  Conn. 

Woodstock. 

Hartford.      (First.) 

Marshfield,  Mass. 

Stamford,  Conn. 

East  Cornwall. 

Marshfield,  Mass. 

Morris,  N.  Y. 

Clifton  Park,  N.  Y. 

Troy. 


1795- 
1796- 

1797- 
1798- 

1799- 
i8oo — 


i8oi— 


1802- 
1803- 


1804- 
1805- 


1806— 


Venice. 

Wallingford,  Vt. 
North  Berwick,  Me. 
Stephentown,  N.  Y. 
Thompson,  Conn. 
Thompson. 
■Warwick,  Mass. 
South  New  Berlin,  N.  Y. 
Exeter,  N.  H. 
Grafton,  Mass. 
Norwich,  Conn. 
Norwich. 

Abbott's  Corner,  Quebec. 
Portland,  Me. 
WalUngford,  Vt. 
Charlestown,  Mass. 
Cazenovia,  N.  Y. 
Cortland. 
Homer. 

West  Royalston,  Mass. 
Barnstable. 
Cromwell,  Conn. 
Grafton,  Vt. 
Wallingford,  Vt. 
Rupert. 
Beverly,  Mass. 
Somerset. 
West  Royalston. 
Butternuts,  N.  Y. 
Covert. 

-MiUis  Mem.,  Troy,  N.  Y. 
Wallingford,  Vt. 
New  London,  Conn. 
-Sedgwick,  Me. 
Salem,  Mass.     (First.) 
Suffield,  Conn.   (Second.) 
Butternuts,  N.  Y. 
Covert. 

Lansingburgh. 
Stillwater. 
Greenfield,  N.  Y. 
Ovid.     (2.) 
Grafton,  Vt. 
North  Springfield. 
Swanzey,  N.  H. 


1807 — Boston,  Mass.    (First.) 

Hartford,  Conn. 

Galway,  N.  Y. 

Stillwater. 
1808— Gilmanton,  N.  H. 

North  Springfield,  Vt. 

Barnstable,  Mass. 

Bernardston. 

Mansfield,  Conn. 

Bennettsburg,  N.  Y. 

Acworth,  N.  H. 

Somerset,  Mass. 

North  Hector,  N.  Y. 

Truxton. 
1810— Bath,  Me. 

Burrillville,  R.  I. 

Salon,  N.  Y. 

Spencer. 
181 1 — Essex,  Conn. 

Hartford. 

Suffield. 

Albany,  N.  Y. 
18 1 2 — Buckstown,  Me. 

Cheshire,  Vt. 

Covert,  N.  Y. 
1813 — Canaan,  N.  H. 
1814 — Canton,  Mass. 

Sharon. 
1814 — Webster,  Mass. 
1815 — Methuen,  Mass. 

Webster. 

Cortland,  N.  Y. 
1816 — New  Haven,  Conn. 

Bennettsburg,  N.  Y. 
1817 — Alfred,  Me. 

Enfield,  N.  Y. 
Forestville. 
1818— North  Hector,  N.  Y. 
Brookfield,  Mass. 
Newburyport,  Mass. 
1819 — Taunton,  Mass. 

Leverett  and  Montague. 
Thompson,  Conn. 
Farmer  Village,  N.  Y. 
Ulysses. 
1820— Forestville,  N.  Y. 


114 


B.     Councils  for  the  Ordination  of  Deacons. 

1803 — Wallingford,  Vt.  1827 — Townsend,  Mass. 

1806 — Weathersfield.  1828 — Groton,  Conn. 

Ovid,  N.Y.  1832— Ovid,  N.  Y. 

1815 — Cortland,  N.  Y.  1833 — Fitchburg,  Mass. 

1817 — Ovid.  (Council  called,  but  184S — Mecklenburg,  N.  Y. 

no    record    that    it  vsras  1859 — Ovid, 

held.)  i86o — Mecklenburg. 

i822(?) — North  Hector.  1862— Ovid. 

1822 — Danby  (Ithaca)  N.  Y.  1876 — Bennettsburg,  N.  Y. 

Ovid. 
1823 — Manchester,  Vt. 
Sandisfield,  Mass. 


115 


Date  Due 


imUHMI"""""" 


BX6235 .A43 

Baptist  councils  in  America. 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1   1012  00020  6278 


